1. The decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No extension of time of planning permit BOR/00/01079 is granted.

(given orally at the hearing and subsequently revised)

1. Planning permit BOR/00/01079 was issued on 13 March 2001. It allowed part demolition, alterations and additions to an existing dwelling under a Heritage Overlay.
2. Time for commencement of the development expired on 13 March 2003. An extension was granted in 2003 for the permit to expire on 13 March 2004. A further extension was granted to 13 March 2005. At the time of this extension in 2004, the council said that it would not extend the permit again and a new permit application would be required. Notwithstanding this, a further six month extension was granted to 13 September 2005.
3. The applicants have never acted on the permit and consequently it expired on 13 September 2005, which is over two years ago. The applicants have now applied for a further extension of time, which the council has refused.
4. Each time a request has been made to extend the permit, the applicants have cited the ill health of Mrs Magnano's mother as the reason why the development has not proceeded. Whilst this may have been a reason why the development did not proceed, it does not explain their failure to seek a further extension within three months of expiry of the permit. It does not account for a delay of two years.
5. Time limits are placed on permits to ensure that they do not grow stale. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 enables council to extend permits if a request is made within 3 months after the permit expired. As I said in the case of Sar Developments Pty Ltd v Brimbank CC[1]:

[3] Sometimes situations arise where, for legitimate reasons, people overlook the need to apply for an extension of time of their permits before or within 3 months after they expire. If there is a good reason why a request for extension is not made within 3 months after the permit expired, and when the council does not oppose an extension and there has been no change in planning policy or zoning affecting the land, the Tribunal will frequently exercise its discretion under clause 62 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to disregard the failure to make an application within 3 months. It does so for the reasons set out by Justice Morris in Schneider v Boroondara CC, and where it is in the interests of justice to disregard the failure of the permit holder to apply to the Responsible Authority for an extension for time within the time specified in section 69(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

1. The present case does not fall into this category. The permit expired in September 2005. More than two years later, well outside the 3 month grace period, the request was made for an extension. In my view, there is no good reason for exercising my discretion to disregard the failure to apply for an extension of time within the period specified in the Act. There have been changes to planning controls and policy since the permit was granted and, after the length of time which has elapsed since the permit was first issued in 2001, it is appropriate that the proposal be reassessed in light of current controls and policy. I consider that the applicants have had an adequate length of time within which to carry out the development and it is not appropriate to attempt to revive a permit which expired in 2005.
2. For these reasons, the application is refused. Mr and Mrs Magnano will need to lodge a fresh planning permit application if they wish to proceed with this development.

[1] [2007] VCAT 2328