Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2015-08-04

For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed and no permit shall issue.

[1] We have considered the submissions and evidence of all the parties that appeared, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[2] The Panel appointed by the Minister to consider submissions on this amendment has recommended a number of changes to the exhibited version of the amendment including the translation of mandatory requirements into discretionary requirements. At the time of the Tribunal hearing the Council had not adopted amendment C107.

[3] For example refer to Pentas Property Investments Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2005] VCAT 2196, Australia Mei Jei International Corporaton Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2015] VCAT 158, Richmond Icon Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2011] VCAT 2175.

[4] The Minister has recently released Better Apartments A Discussion Paper (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, May 2015) and Better Apartments Ministers Forum Context Report (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, July 2015).

[5] Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004) as referred to in Clause 15.01-2 of the planning scheme.

[6] Mr Morris on behalf of his clients proposed a number of design changes in addition to a minimum 9.0m separation.

Lintime Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2015] VCAT 1244 (4 August 2015)

Lintime Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2015] VCAT 1244

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Lintime Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2015] VCAT 1244 (4 August 2015)