1. The applicant has made an application for costs at the hearing on 18 November 2025, as foreshadowed in its written submissions filed prior to the hearing.

By 17 December 2025, the applicant must give the Tribunal and the parties submissions supporting its application for costs.

The submissions must include the following information:

1. The basis upon which costs are sought.
2. The amount and details of the costs claimed including any itemised bills with invoices where relevant.
3. The basis on which the costs are calculated (for example, whether on a standard or indemnity basis, and whether on the County Court or Supreme Court scale. Note that under Rule 1.07 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2018 (Vic), the default scale of costs is now on a standard basis on the County Court Scale.)
4. The reasons why costs should be awarded having regard to the provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).
5. A copy of any document relied upon in the costs application or supporting submissions.

Response from other parties to application for costs

1. By 21 January 2026, if the respondent wishes to oppose or otherwise respond to the application for costs, they must give to the Tribunal and the parties:
   1. Submissions which explain their position in respect of the costs application, including any basis on which they oppose the application; and
   2. A copy of any documents relied on in their submissions.

1. Unless varied by further order of the Tribunal, the hearing of any application for costs will be conducted 'on the papers' at 10:00am on 3 March 2026. No attendance is required. If you are the applicant in this proceeding, you may be required to pay a daily hearing fee before the hearing commences.
2. If a party objects to the application for costs being determined 'on the papers', they must advise the Tribunal and the other parties of this by 30 January 2026 and provide reasons for their objection.

1. Any request for further or alternative procedural orders from the Tribunal must be made in writing and a copy must be given to all parties.

1. The Moyne Shire Council ('council') filed an application for enforcement order pursuant to section 114 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) ('PE Act') on 12 June 2025, seeking the removal of motor vehicles from the land at 61 Austin Street, Hawkesdale ('land').
2. The land is owned by Glenn Justin Stokes, the respondent to this application ('respondent').
3. The respondent did not file a statement of grounds in response to this application and did not attend the practice day hearing on 1 August 2025. As the Tribunal was concerned that the respondent was unaware of the application, orders were made following the practice day hearing requiring the council to effect personal service of the application on the respondent. If this could not be carried out, the council was required to provide the Tribunal with an explanation. The council was unable to effect personal service and provided a comprehensive explanation of the steps it had taken by letter dated 22 August 2025. The council subsequently filed an affidavit of Evie Margot Atkinson-Willes, dated 29 October 2025, in which it was explained that when the witness statement of Peter Gstrein ('Gstrein affidavit') was filed and served on behalf of the council on 17 October, a confirmation email was received via the relevant program that the large files sent has been accessed and downloaded via the email that the council had been using to send correspondence to the respondent.
4. On 3 November 2025, prior to the hearing, the council received an email from the respondent via the same email address, and the Tribunal received a separate email on 14 November 2025. The content of those emails is reproduced below, without amendment:

3 November 2025

Hi,

Ive only recently been informed of this action. Have had 3 years of medical mishaps, most recently being heart failure. I do not recognise moynes or your authority. I am purchasing a block closer to my mother and family and will be moving my collection wholesale when I have secured a new lication. Then i will be selling the entire festering pile. And getting out of the line of fire from the dibber dobber community. Hopefully the buyer will be even worse than me.

Also. The person from moyne reporti g has omitted many things from our interactions. Including but not limited to withdrawing from agreements we had made about cleanups with no notice and no reason. So. There is no respect or care for the way ive been treated.

Enjoy your day. Please do not contact me again.

14 November 2025

Yes? Thankyou. Only recently discovered the information leading up to this. Ill not bw there, youll get no information from me. Im recouperating from a stroke and heart failure. Im selling the property and moving on from the bullshit. Cannot be bothered dealing with it.waste of mine and vcats time.

Pointless trying to save rare and collectible vehicles. Might as well cash them.in.

1. Although the respondent did not appear at the hearing on 18 November 2025, I am satisfied that the respondent is aware of the application, including the breaches alleged and orders sought. On that basis, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the respondent.
2. Section 119 of the PE Act sets out what an enforcement order can provide for as follows:

An enforcement order made by the Tribunal -

(a) must specify -

(i) the use or development which contravenes or has contravened or will contravene this Act or the planning scheme, permit condition or agreement; and

(ii) any other prescribed information; and

(b) may direct any person against whom it is made to do any one or more of the following -

(i) to stop the use or development within a specified period; or

(ii) not to start the use or development; or

(iii) to maintain a building in accordance with the order; or

(iv) to do specified things within a specified period -

(A) to restore the land as nearly as practicable to its condition immediately before the use or development started or to any condition specified in the order or to any other condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, a Minister, public authority, municipal council, referral authority or other person or body specified in the Order; or

(B) to otherwise ensure compliance with this Act, or the planning scheme, permit condition or agreement under section 173.

1. The Tribunal must be satisfied that there is 'a use or development which contravenes or has contravened or will contravene this Act or the planning scheme' and must then determine whether it is appropriate to make an enforcement order in accordance with section 119(b).
2. Having heard the submissions and considered the evidence filed,[2] I find that the respondent has contravened the planning scheme by storing motor vehicles on the land without a planning permit and find that it is appropriate to make an enforcement order requiring removal of the vehicles. Further to a request from the applicant, I have also included a process by which the council's costs application can be considered and determined, including an opportunity for the respondent to file submissions in advance of a decision being made about payment of costs and reimbursement of Tribunal fees.
3. My reasons follow.

1. The land is within a Township Zone ('TZ') in the Moyne Planning Scheme ('Scheme') and is developed with former church and Sunday school buildings.
2. Land use definitions are found in the Scheme at clause 73.03. Store, as set out below, is defined as 'land used to store goods, machinery, or vehicles'. The term Store includes the use 'Vehicle store'.

1. In the TZ, within the table of uses at clause 32.05-2, Store and Vehicle store are not listed uses. Section 2 of the table of uses includes 'Any other use not in Section 1 or 3'. Therefore, planning permission is required for use of the land as a Store or Vehicle store. Alternatively, Store is a use nested within the land use term Warehouse at clause 73.04 of the Scheme. Warehouse is listed as a use in section 2 which requires a planning permit in the TZ.
2. The land does not appear to be tenanted and there have been several cars and vehicles parked on the land, accumulating over several years. The following aerial images of the land are included in the Gstrein affidavit at exhibit PG4, illustrating the accumulation of vehicles over time.

1. The Gstrein affidavit includes photographs from an external site inspection on 16 April 2025 and again on 14 October 2025. The below images from PDF pages 36 and 50 of the Gstrein affidavit provide an indication of the number of cars stored on the land and their condition. Additionally, a comparison of the two images indicates that vehicles have not been removed during that time.

1. Photo 10, included at PDH page 43 of the Gstrein affidavit, provides a closer view of the condition of some of the cars on the land.

1. As set out in the council's written submissions, by letters dated 23 March 2017 and 10 July 2019, council officers advised the respondent that they considered that the land was being used as a Store for motor vehicles without planning permission and contrary to the Scheme. Both times the respondent was advised to apply for planning permission or remove the vehicles. On 12 May 2021, the council issued the respondent with a Planning Infringement Notice in respect of a breach of clause 32.05-2 of the Scheme on the basis that officers had formed the view that the land was still being used as a Store. The respondent refused to pay the infringement or remove the vehicles. Council again wrote to the respondent on 7 November 2023, and again in 2025 prior to the filing of the application for enforcement order.

1. I find that the photographic evidence, together with the council correspondence to the respondent over a period of several years, clearly establishes that the land is being used as a Vehicle store. The council submissions used the land use term Store and the proposed enforcement order referred to 'Store (motor vehicles)'. Given that Vehicle store is a listed use in clause 73.03 of the Scheme, I consider this is the most appropriate characterisation of the use of the land.
2. A planning permit is required for Vehicle store in the TZ, and no planning permission has been granted. Therefore, the use of the land is in breach of clause 32.05-2 of the Scheme.

1. Once it is determined that a contravention has occurred, the Tribunal must consider whether to exercise its discretion to make an enforcement order, and the terms of any order made.
2. The council made the following written submissions as to why the Tribunal should use its discretion to grant the enforcement order sought:
   1. Council has a statutory duty to enforce the Planning Scheme and takes this responsibility seriously. To allow this unlawful use to continue would undermine the integrity of the Planning Scheme and would be unfair to residents and businesses of Hawkesdale who abide by the requirements of the Planning Scheme. Consequently, Council is seeking an enforcement order to prevent the continuing contravention of the Planning Scheme and the Act.

1. The evidence submitted to the Tribunal to date shows consistent use of the Land to store Motor Vehicles over at least 8 years. The Respondent was advised in 2017, 2019, 2023 and again in 2025 that this use is in breach of the Planning Scheme and was given an opportunity to cease or regularise the use through a permit application.

1. The Tribunal has previous stated that various factors are relevant to the exercise of that discretion, including the scale and extent of the breach, the impact of the breach on surrounding properties, the purposes of the applicable planning controls and policies, the circumstances surrounding the commencement/ establishment of the breach, and the Council's actions to address the matter prior to initiating proceedings.7
2. Council has received complaints but that is not a prerequisite, and it is open to the Tribunal to form the view that the breach has the potential to detrimentally impact the amenity of surrounding properties.8
3. The use of the Land for a Store, primarily for Motor Vehicles in disrepair, is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses and the purpose of the TZ.
4. Council's actions have always been directed towards facilitating compliance with the Planning Scheme. The Respondent was given notice of the alleged breach and an opportunity to make submissions or show cause as to why further action should not be taken. The Respondent has not contested the characterisation of the use or provided any evidence contrary to Council's view. The Respondent has been given every opportunity to remove the Motor Vehicles from the Land or apply for permission to use the Land for a Store.
5. A Planning Infringement Notice was issued, and the penalty was not paid. Council elected not to prosecute that matter in the Magistrates' Court. Prosecution would not have brought about compliance with the Planning Scheme.
6. Ultimately, after other measures were unsuccessful, Council considered it necessary to bring this application in order to achieve compliance with the Planning Scheme.
7. In Council's submission, this is not a technicality or trifling issue. The storage of vehicles is an eyesore and arguably a haven for vermin. A planning permit is clearly required for the use, and the Respondent has not obtained a permit.
8. These are factors in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretion to make the orders sought.9
9. Additionally, the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to make an enforcement order because:

67.1. The Respondent should not be permitted to continue an unlawful use of the Land where they have been on notice since 2017 to obtain a planning permit or remove the Motor Vehicles stored on the Land;

67.2. To permit the continued unlawful use of the Land for a Store would be unfair to other residents and businesses in the locality that comply with the Planning Scheme; and

67.3. There is a public interest in making an enforcement order as a general deterrent to others.

1. It is appropriate, fair and necessary to make the enforcement orders sought to bring the Land into compliance with the Planning Scheme.

7 Mildura RCC v Brown [2024] VCAT 505 at [68].

8 Ibid at [69].

1. Mount Alexander SC v Kunkel [2019] VCAT 1476 at [75].
2. I agree with the submissions of the council. Vehicle storage is a use that requires planning permission under the Scheme. The respondent has accumulated vehicles on the land over several years despite being informed of the contravention of the Scheme as early as 2017. The emails from the respondent received just prior to the hearing provide an acknowledgement of the ongoing storage of vehicles on the land. While the emails also detail health concerns of the respondent over the past three years, the respondent has not elected to communicate with the council over a long period of time nor has the respondent communicated the recent problems or asked for an extension of time to comply, or otherwise attempted to facilitate a resolution of the issue.

1. Despite the reference by the respondent to 'rare and collectible' vehicles, the vehicles appear to be dilapidated, rusting and in disrepair with the land appearing unkempt and neglected. It is not only an eyesore but, as noted by the council, can become a health issue for the adjoining area.
2. The respondent has not applied for planning permission to use the land in this way or made any attempt to rectify the situation despite knowledge that the current use is unlawful.
3. The council has established the contravention of the Scheme, and I am satisfied that in the circumstances it is appropriate and just that the Tribunal exercise its discretion to make the enforcement order sought.
4. The council has asked for the vehicles to be removed within 90 days which, in the absence of submissions by the respondent, I consider is a reasonable period of time to allow the respondent to arrange for removal. To avoid confusion, I have inserted the specific date of 20 February 2026 by which all vehicles must be removed.

1. For the reasons provided above, an enforcement order has been made for removal of the vehicles from the land and cessation of use of the land as a Store. A process has also been set out to facilitate consideration of the application for costs made by the council against the respondent.

Use of the land at 61 Austin Street, Hawkesdale being the land contained in Certificate of Title Volume 11007 Folio 595 (Subject Land) as a Vehicle store without a planning permit in contravention of Clause 32.05-2 of the Moyne Planning Scheme.

1. By no later than 20 February 2026, the Respondent must cease the use of the Subject Land for the purpose of a Vehicle store.
2. By no later than 20 February 2026, the Respondent must remove all vehicles from the Subject Land.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] Most of the documentation and photographs relevant to this application are included in the 15 October 2025 affidavit of Peter Gstrein. Although Peter Gstrein did not attend in person to give oral evidence, I consider it appropriate to have regard to the documents contained in the affidavit.