• 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

The land was affected by three zones: Industrial 1, Urban Floodway and a small portion of Residential. The judgment states that the overlay controls were irrelevant to the application. The alleged use was materials recycling, defined in the reasons as land used to “collect, dismantle, store, recycle or sell, used or scrap materials” (Reasons, “Use and zoning controls”).

The Council's enforcement and prosecution coordinator, Mr Casha, gave oral evidence and provided photographs from site visits on 4 November 2008, 7 January 2009, 23 March 2009, 7 April 2009 and 29 May 2009. He described materials including shelving, timber, steel beams, windows, transformers, cash registers, metal reinforcing, ducting, insulation and filing cabinets. Inside a large shed, he observed items including fish tanks, push bikes, chemical containers, old computers, nuts and bolts, cash registers and machinery.

The evidence also referred to unregistered trucks, vehicles in disrepair, dodgem cars, steel drums, portable buildings, semi-trailers, shipping containers and other items. Some transformers were said to possibly contain PCBs, and one leaking oil drum and a drum labelled “sulphuric acid” were also recorded. The Tribunal did not make a separate finding about the contents or legal classification of each item. Instead, its order required a suitably qualified and experienced consultant to characterise the waste and materials, including under the specified EPA Victoria publication, and identify asbestos or asbestos-containing material.

The Tribunal found that the evidence established materials recycling and that the materials were used, second-hand or scrap, rather than new merchandise. It found the use breached the planning controls applying to the relevant parts of the land. The order required cessation within seven days of service, a report within 30 days, and removal and restoration within 120 days. It also required prescribed industrial waste to be disposed of at a premises licensed to accept it under the Environment Protection Act 1970. The Council's costs were fixed at $11,000, payable within 60 days of service.

The Tribunal also mentioned a second road access, materials protruding into a road reserve, and apparent human habitation within the shed. It expressly noted that no application was made in these proceedings concerning the dwelling use or the use of the road reserve. Those matters were therefore not the basis of the enforcement orders described in the judgment.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal's central task was to determine whether the use proved by the Council contravened the planning scheme. The relevant reasoning was specific to the zones and the location of the use on this site. The judgment states that materials recycling on Industrial 1 land more than 30 metres from residentially zoned land required planning permission under clause 33.01-1, and that no permission existed. It says that the use was prohibited under that clause on Industrial 1 land less than 30 metres from residentially zoned land. It also says that clause 37.03-1 prohibited materials recycling on the Urban Floodway land.

The evidentiary basis was Mr Casha's account of repeated visits and photographs. The Tribunal described the evidence against the respondent as “compelling” and said it was satisfied that the respondent was in breach of the planning scheme (Reasons, “Evidence of used, second hand or scrap materials stored”). In its finding, it specifically accepted that the stored materials were used, second-hand or scrap materials, not new merchandise. That characterisation connected the observed goods to the planning-scheme definition of materials recycling.

The respondent did not appear at the hearing. The Tribunal recorded that Council's evidence had been served on the respondent's colleague at the site, and that the respondent later confirmed receipt in a telephone conversation with Mr Casha. It also recorded that neither the Council nor its solicitors received an objection, statement of grounds or other written communication contesting the application. The decision does not state that non-appearance alone established the contravention. Rather, it expressly relies on the sworn evidence and says Council had proven its case.

The orders addressed the ongoing use and the uncertainty about what was stored on the site. Cessation addressed the land use found to be in breach. The consultant's report was to identify the location, volume and distribution of waste and materials; classify them by reference to EPA Victoria publication No. 448.3, dated May 2007; and identify asbestos or asbestos-containing material. Removal and restoration were then required. This structure is significant: the decision did not itself purport to make a detailed scientific classification of every item, but required a report to supply that information.

For costs, the Council's solicitor reported solicitor-client fees of $18,762.25, while presenting a party-and-party calculation of $11,034 based on County Court Scale D. The Tribunal fixed the award at $11,000 rather than sending the matter to taxation. It reasoned that the Council, acting as responsible authority to enforce its planning scheme, had been forced to commence and finalise the proceedings, and cited s 109(3)(e) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

Before and after state of the law

The supplied judgment does not describe the broader state of planning law before the decision, nor does it purport to amend or comprehensively restate planning law. It applies the Mitchell Planning Scheme provisions identified in the reasons to the evidence about this particular land. Accordingly, the decision should be read as a site-specific enforcement determination, not as a general account of all planning controls for recycling uses.

Before the orders, the Tribunal found that materials recycling was occurring on the subject land without the required permission in the relevant Industrial 1 area and in areas where the scheme prohibited the use. The judgment's account of clause 33.01-1 distinguishes Industrial 1 land more than 30 metres from residentially zoned land from land less than 30 metres away. Clause 37.03-1 is identified as prohibiting the use on the Urban Floodway land. The small Residential portion is mentioned as part of the zoning description, but the alleged contraventions and orders described in the judgment focus on Industrial 1 and Urban Floodway land.

After the decision, the operative position for the parties was expressed through the enforcement order. It required the respondent to stop the materials-recycling use, commission and provide the specified report, remove the materials and waste, dispose of any prescribed industrial waste at an appropriately licensed premises, restore the land as nearly as practicable to its condition immediately before the contravening use commenced, and pay the fixed costs. The order does not establish a general rule that every item stored on industrial land constitutes materials recycling. The Tribunal's finding depended on its assessment of the evidence and the relevant zone provisions.

The judgment contains no cited cases and no discussion of how other courts or tribunals had treated these provisions. It also contains no account of subsequent amendments to the planning scheme or legislation. Any statement about the current text of those instruments, later authority, or the decision's present precedential treatment would therefore require sources beyond the judgment provided here.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The reasons state that materials recycling is “land used to collect, dismantle, store, recycle or sell, used or scrap materials.” In plain English, the Tribunal treated collecting or storing used and scrap goods as potentially part of the defined use, not only the physical processing of materials. Its factual finding was that the items at this site were used, second-hand or scrap, rather than new merchandise.

The decision's account of clause 33.01-1 makes a location-based distinction. On Industrial 1 land more than 30 metres from residentially zoned land, a permit was required. On Industrial 1 land less than 30 metres from residentially zoned land, the use was prohibited. In plain English, the Tribunal did not treat all Industrial 1 land on this property in the same way: the applicable control depended on the relationship between the relevant land and residentially zoned land. It separately identified the Urban Floodway control as a prohibition under clause 37.03-1.

The Tribunal said that the Council's evidence was “compelling” and that it was satisfied the respondent was in breach of the planning scheme. In plain English, the Tribunal accepted the witness's evidence, supported by photographs, as sufficient to prove the alleged use and contravention. The supplied text restarts paragraph numbering across sections, so these passages are best located by the section headings in the reasons rather than by a single unambiguous paragraph number.

The orders set out staged requirements. Cessation was required within seven days of service. The consultant's report was due within 30 days. Removal, disposal where relevant, and restoration were due within 120 days. Costs of $11,000 were due within 60 days of service. These periods run from the service date where the order says so, not from the hearing date.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The judgment is most directly relevant to a fact pattern involving evidence of a land use that falls within the planning scheme definition of materials recycling, on land subject to zone-specific restrictions, where the responsible authority seeks enforcement. Its factual indicators included repeated storage and movement of numerous used, second-hand or scrap items, including machinery, vehicles, metal goods, containers and other materials. The Tribunal relied on oral evidence and photographs of the site.

The decision is also relevant where different parts of one property are subject to different zone controls or a distance-based restriction. Here, the Tribunal considered Industrial 1 land at different distances from residentially zoned land and separately considered Urban Floodway land. The order therefore followed the geography described in the application and the planning scheme controls identified in the reasons.

The case does not decide that the mere presence of stored goods always amounts to materials recycling. The Tribunal accepted the Council's evidence that the materials were used, second-hand or scrap and found that the land was being used for recycling. A different case may turn on the nature of the goods, what activities occur on the land, the applicable scheme definition, the precise zoning and location, and whether any permit or other relevant approval exists. The supplied reasons do not examine those alternative fact patterns.

Nor does the decision determine the separate legality of the road access, the materials on the road reserve, or residential occupation of the shed. The Tribunal expressly noted that no application concerning those matters was made. Their inclusion in the evidence should not be confused with the matters actually determined.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no citations to other judicial decisions and provides no information about later cases. On this source alone, it is not possible to say whether later courts or tribunals have followed, distinguished, applied or questioned the decision.

The judgment is a VCAT decision by a Senior Member in an enforcement proceeding. The text records findings and orders in that proceeding, but does not discuss its status as precedent or the weight later decision-makers should give it. Any assessment of subsequent treatment would require later judgments or tribunal decisions that cite or discuss Mitchell SC v Shirreff. No such sources are included in the material provided, so a later-treatment account cannot responsibly be supplied from this judgment alone.

Still-open questions

The reasons do not reproduce the full text of clauses 33.01-1 and 37.03-1. They summarise how those clauses applied to the case. Questions about the precise wording, exceptions, permit pathways or current version of the clauses cannot be answered from this judgment alone.

The decision does not describe in detail how the 30-metre measurement was made, which specific materials were located on each zoned portion, or how the site boundaries were mapped against each zone. The Tribunal accepted the Council's proofs of ownership and zoning and found the contraventions proved, but the supplied text does not provide a detailed spatial analysis.

The Tribunal ordered a consultant to characterise waste under the identified EPA publication and locate asbestos or asbestos-containing material. The judgment does not report the eventual results of that assessment, identify which materials were ultimately classified as prescribed industrial waste, or record whether the removal, disposal and restoration orders were complied with.

The costs reasons state the figures and the Tribunal's rationale, but do not set out a detailed analysis of each item in the party-and-party calculation. The judgment also does not explain the later procedural history, if any, including compliance, further applications or review.

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