//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] VCAT 494
respondent. The application for review was unsuccessful. The Tribunal directed that no permit shall issue. It stated that the application should be totally redesigned and sent back to the responsible...
The Tribunal thought medium-density housing could fit the wider context of this site, and it criticised the Council's restrictive approach to incremental change. But the plans themselves had serious problems. In particular, the drawings did not accurately show the elevated floor levels associated with flooding, the proposed private open spaces faced overlooking and possible overshadowing, some open-space arrangements were inadequate, and the buildings did not relate well to Carrington Grove or function well internally. The Tribunal therefore refused the review and ordered that no permit issue. It said the project required a complete redesign and reassessment.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,189 words · generated 30/09/2026
Olcon Developments Pty Ltd applied for review of Glen Eira City Council's failure to grant a planning permit for three double-storey dwellings on a vacant corner site at 187 Orrong Road, East St Kilda. The application was made under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as identified in the judgment's catchwords. The site was in a Residential 1 Zone, where a permit was required under clause 32.01-4 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme to construct more than two dwellings on a lot ([6]).
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The permit application was lodged on 14 April 2000. Following Council comments, including a referral to Melbourne Water about flooding, the plans were amended and resubmitted on 1 August 2000. Advertising concluded on 2 October 2000, and two objections were received. Olcon lodged its review application on 26 October 2000 ([2]). Council later advised that it had exhibited Amendment C16, a proposed Special Overlay relating to designated flood-prone areas ([3]).
The proposal placed three dwellings on a site of about 910 square metres. Each was double-storey and included garage accommodation and private open space, with different arrangements of terraces and driveways ([4]–[5]). The surrounding area was mixed. Orrong Road included detached dwellings as well as two- and three-storey blocks of flats; Carrington Grove was described as predominantly single-storey detached housing. The Council's planning position was that this neighbourhood was among the least preferred areas for change under its Municipal Strategic Statement, and that the proposal represented overdevelopment ([3]).
The Tribunal, constituted by Member A. J. Quirk, heard the matter on 20 February 2001 and issued its decision on 15 March 2001. It dismissed the review and directed that no permit issue. Its conclusion was not that the site could never accommodate medium-density housing. Rather, it considered the particular plans unacceptable on their merits, despite its criticism of the Council's interpretation of incremental change ([13], [20]–[22]).
The Tribunal approached the question in two connected ways: the strategic context for change and the merits of the particular design.
On strategic context, the Tribunal criticised the weight Council appeared to give its Incremental Change Policy. It observed that the officer assessment devoted substantially more attention to strategic planning issues than to the proposal's merits against the Good Design Guide, and referred to other matters in which the Tribunal had criticised Glen Eira's approach ([8]–[9]). The Tribunal considered that a policy interpretation effectively meaning “no change” did not explain how decision-makers could assess incremental change in particular areas ([12]).
The Tribunal's own assessment drew on factors attributed to an earlier review: existing multi-unit development, built form and scale, landscape character, heritage, physical constraints, traffic and parking, adjoining amenity and internal amenity ([11]). Applying those considerations, it regarded the site as suitable for medium-density development in streetscape and change terms ([13]). That conclusion was expressly about the area's capacity for a type of development. It did not amount to approval of Olcon's plans.
The decisive problems were in the proposed design and supporting drawings. First, the plans did not accurately represent the vertical consequences of the flood-related floor levels. The Tribunal recorded proposed minimum floor levels about 0.9 metres above natural ground for dwelling 3 and about 1.4 metres for dwelling 1, and said those levels were not properly shown on the elevations ([14]–[15]). This mattered because the drawings, in the Tribunal's view, did not provide an accurate account of how the proposal would sit in relation to the ground and street.
Second, the Tribunal identified significant amenity concerns. It considered that the private open spaces would be seriously overlooked and possibly overshadowed by the three-storey residential flat building to the north. It also noted that no shadow diagrams had been submitted to show the effect of that neighbouring building on the proposal ([16]). The Tribunal observed that the proposed buildings would themselves affect their own private open spaces, and that overlooking also concerned habitable-room windows ([16]).
Third, it considered the principal private open spaces inadequate, notwithstanding that some were larger than the Good Design Guide's stated requirements. It focused particularly on dwelling 1, a large four-bedroom dwelling with the smallest open space, smaller even than the two-bedroom dwelling next door, and only 33 square metres more proposed title area ([17]). The concern was thus not merely a numerical comparison. It was the fit between the size and use of the dwelling and the space allocated to it.
Fourth, the Tribunal found a poor relationship to Carrington Grove. Although the proposed dwellings and garages had setbacks, the buildings were well forward of the dwelling at No. 3 Carrington Grove, which had an approximately eight-metre setback. The Tribunal considered a different garage position for unit 1 would be preferable, while recognising that this would change the proposal's architectural features ([18]).
Finally, the Tribunal criticised the internal layout, giving examples including the distance between dwelling 3's dining room and kitchen, the separation of meals and family rooms by the kitchen, and the placement of bathrooms, laundries and the upstairs television room ([19]). Taken together, these defects led it to find that the proposal failed on its merits. The problems were too numerous for a direction to submit amended plans, and the Tribunal said the application required a total redesign and return to the responsible authority for reassessment ([20]–[21]).
This judgment does not purport to change the law or announce a new general test. It is a merits decision on a particular permit-review application. The legal framework it identifies is the section 79 review, the relevant zone and permit requirement under clause 32.01-4, the Municipal Strategic Statement, the local incremental-change policy, and the Good Design Guide ([6]–[7], [11], [16]).
The decision is significant in how it separates strategic suitability from the acceptability of a specific design. The Tribunal considered the site suitable for medium-density development in context, but refused the application because of the actual drawings and design ([13]–[20]). A cautious reading is that positive findings about an area's capacity for change do not, by themselves, answer whether a particular proposal meets design and amenity considerations.
The Tribunal also expressed criticism of Glen Eira's policy approach. It questioned whether the practical effect of the Council's interpretation was to permit no change, and suggested that Council might consider revising its policy in light of criticism in other Tribunal matters ([9], [12]). These observations are part of the Tribunal's reasoning about the planning context, but the decision did not invalidate or formally amend the Council's policy. Nor does the text establish that the Tribunal's approach displaced any statutory rule.
Accordingly, the “before and after” account should be modest. Before this decision, the scheme and policy materials described in the reasons supplied the planning framework. After the decision, the permit application before the Tribunal had been refused, and the Tribunal had expressed its view that the proposal needed redesign and reassessment. The judgment does not state that a general legal doctrine changed.
At [12], the Tribunal said that simply looking at Council policies and strategies did not give a lead “apart from a perception that responsible authority's interpretation of incremental change means no change.” In plain English, the Tribunal considered that the Council's approach risked treating the policy as a barrier to development rather than as a way of assessing the degree and compatibility of change.
At [13], the Tribunal said the site was suitable for medium-density development “both in streetscape and change terms.” This was a contextual observation, not a finding that the proposal had to be permitted. The later merits analysis demonstrates that distinction: the Tribunal still found the submitted scheme unacceptable.
At [14], the Tribunal said the elevations were misleading because they did not properly show the implications of the flood-related levels. In practical terms, the drawings did not accurately convey how high parts of the development would sit compared with natural ground and the footpath. The Tribunal also stated at [15] that the drawings were “totally inaccurate in the vertical,” a strong criticism of the plans' representation of height and levels.
At [16], the Tribunal identified overlooking and possible overshadowing of the proposed private open spaces, while noting the absence of shadow diagrams addressing the effect of the neighbouring building. The point was that the materials did not adequately demonstrate the proposal's amenity conditions.
At [17], the Tribunal focused on the mismatch between dwelling 1's size and its comparatively small private open space and title area. In plain English, the Tribunal considered the space provision inadequate when assessed against the size and likely use of that dwelling, even though some areas exceeded specified design-guide requirements.
At [20], the Tribunal stated that the proposal “fails on its merits” and had too many problems for it to direct amended plans. At [21], it said the application should be totally redesigned and returned to the responsible authority. These passages explain the outcome: the Tribunal did not grant a permit or invite a limited correction within the review. It considered the design required a comprehensive reconsideration.
The decision is most relevant as an example where a planning review involves both a strategic dispute about residential change and detailed design objections. The facts included a vacant corner site, existing multi-unit buildings in the broader streetscape, a Council policy favouring limited change in the relevant area, and a proposed multi-dwelling development ([3]–[6], [8]–[13]).
It also illustrates a situation in which flood-related floor levels materially affect how plans should be understood. The Tribunal had specific floor-level information but considered that the elevations did not accurately show those levels ([14]–[15]). The reasoning may be relevant to examining plans for flood-prone land where elevated floor levels affect the apparent scale, siting or relationship of a building to its surroundings. The judgment does not set out a general flood-planning test.
The design issues in this case included overlooking, possible overshadowing, private open-space adequacy, setbacks and streetscape relationship, as well as internal layout ([16]–[19]). The decision may therefore be useful where an application has multiple interacting design concerns rather than a single isolated defect. It is not authority, on the text provided, for a universal minimum open-space rule or a general prohibition on three dwellings on a similar site.
Its central caution is that a finding that a location is capable of medium-density change does not settle the merits of the plans actually submitted. The outcome turned on the Tribunal's assessment of this design and these materials. The judgment itself does not establish how a differently designed proposal at this site, or a similar proposal elsewhere, would be decided.
The supplied judgment contains no account of later court or Tribunal treatment of this decision. It therefore does not establish whether later decisions followed, distinguished, approved or criticised Olcon Developments Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC.
The reasons do refer to two earlier Tribunal matters. At [9], the Tribunal referred to Appeal No. 2000/85633, concerning an additional dwelling at 19 Norwood Road, Caulfield North, and described earlier criticism of the Council's incremental-change policy. At [11], it recounted factors from Application for review No. 1999/72060, assessed by Member Margaret Baird, as relevant to an incremental-change assessment. Those references explain the reasoning used in Olcon; they are not later treatment of Olcon.
No broader claim about the judgment's current precedential weight can be grounded in the text provided. Any assessment of its subsequent treatment would require later decisions that are not included here.
The judgment leaves open how the Council's incremental-change policy should be interpreted in other planning applications. The Tribunal criticised the approach it encountered, but did not formulate a comprehensive replacement policy or state a general rule governing all neighbourhoods ([9], [12]).
It also leaves open how much weight should be given to existing multi-unit buildings that the Tribunal described as intrusive departures from the prevailing form of development. At [13], it questioned whether those buildings might themselves reflect incremental change over time, but did not establish how that history should be weighed in a different proposal.
The decision does not specify what redesign would have resolved the identified problems. It lists matters for consideration, including flood levels, scale, form, layout and the Tribunal's other criticisms, but it does not prescribe a revised design or decide whether a redesigned proposal would be acceptable ([21]).
Nor does the judgment set out a general method for balancing the Good Design Guide's techniques and criteria against its objectives. It says the proposal met most techniques and criteria but did not necessarily meet the objectives, then identifies particular defects ([16]). The text does not explain how that assessment would apply to different designs or circumstances.
Finally, the supplied reasons do not provide later decisions assessing this judgment. Its use beyond the specific planning and design context described above cannot be determined from this text alone.
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.
Application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time. Proposed special building on overlay flood prone land, incremental change policy and neighbourhood character
The order of the Tribunal is that the Application for Review is unsuccessful and it is directed that no permit shall issue.
Mr Jon Harper, Town Planner, for the Responsible Authority.
Mr Robert Easton of Easton Consulting for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant.
1. This is an application to review a failure of the City of Glen Eira to grant a permit for three double storey dwellings on the corner of Orrong Road and Carrington Grove, East St Kilda.
2. This was lodged on 14th April 2000. Following this the Council gave some comments to the applicant including with them its Incremental Change Policy and referred the applicant to Melbourne Water's offices in relation to flooding inquiries. The applicant after contacting Melbourne Water amended the plans to show the suggested flood level, and also altered the driveway in accordance with the responsible authority's request and re-submitted these on 1st August 2000. Advertising was directed and concluded on 2nd October 2000. Two objections were received. An application for review was made on 26 October 2000.
3. The responsible authority's Strategic Planning Office advised the applicant on 20th November 2000 that it had exhibited Amendment C16 a Special Overlay which related to designated flood prone areas. On 7th February 2001 the responsible authority's delegates resolved that if they could the Council would oppose the application on the following grounds:
"The proposal represents an overdevelopment when assessed against the planned future of the neighbourhood envisaged through Council's Municipal Strategic Statement (this neighbourhood is the least preferred for change as outlined in the Municipal Strategic Statement).
The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide in relation to Neighbourhood Character and the provision of open space."
4. Mr Harper's description of this has been adopted. This reads thus:
"The subject site is located on the west side of Orrong Road on the corner of Carrington Grove, St Kilda East. The site is approximately 350 metres north of Glen Eira Road and approximately 450 metres south of Balaclava Road.
The subject site is currently vacant, void of all buildings, structures and significant vegetation. The site has no significant fall and adjoining properties present a similar slope. The site is regular in shape and has a frontage of 21.33m and a depth of 42.67m, with a total area of approximately 910sqm. A lane abuts the west boundary of the site.
The adjoining property to the west accommodates a single storey brick dwelling with cement roof tiles that has a front setback to Carrington Grove of approximately 8.0 metres with a high solid fence. A driveway and carport abut the 3.0m laneway that adjoins the subject site.
To the north is a three storey building containing eight units. The block of units are setback approximately 7.6 metres from Orrong Road. Sited 3.3 metres from the north boundary of the appeal site is a three storey high wall. The length of this wall is approximately 31 metres.
Opposite the site to the south is a corner site containing three two storey units. Car accommodation is provided off Carrington Grove and private open space would appear to be provided at the rear (south side). The units are setback 8.2m from Orrong Road and approximately 5.0m from Carrington Grove. Further south along Orrong Road is a mixture of single and double storey dwellings.
To the east of the site on the opposite side of Orrong Road is a more consistent, intact streetscape containing predominantly single storey dwellings generally of the inter war style. Front setbacks vary between 6 and 8 metres and contain well established front gardens.
In summary Orrong Road is characterised by both single and double storey detached dwellings. It is noted, however, that aberrations from this do exist, notably in the form of two and three storey block of flats dating from the 1960's and 1970's. These flats are notable for their departure from the prevailing form of development in form, scale, bulk and siting. It is considered these developments are intrusive elements in both the streetscape and detract from the character of the wider neighbourhood. The theme of housing stock in Carrington Grove is mixed with various styles such as Victorian, Edwardian and contemporary infill development. In terms of built form the street displays predominantly single storey detached dwellings."
5. Mr Easton gave a detailed description of this when he submitted:
"The proposal is for the construction of 3 double storey units. Two of the units are accessed via driveways in Carrington Grove while the third unit is accessed via a new crossing in Orrong Road. Amended plans supplied during the application process and prior to advertising reduced this driveway to 3 metres and relocated it so as to be 2.5 metres from a street tree.
The front unit has been set back 7.5 metres from Orrong Road to match the 7.6 metre setback of the adjacent 3 storey block of flats.
Side street setbacks vary from 3 to 3.5 metres in accordance with concessions available for corner sites.
Upper levels have been articulated in various techniques so that there is not a long straight facade evident from Carrington. This includes a significant setback of the upper level of unit 1 adjacent to the Right of Way even though exhibited planning policies would suggest that the adjoining dwelling no longer complies with accepted flood levels.
Unit 1 comprises one bedroom, lounge, kitchen and meals areas on the ground floor with 2 bedrooms a study and a TV room and associated wet areas on the upper level. It includes double garage with direct access into the house and space for an additional tandem car space accessed from Carrington Grove. Open space is provided in 2 parcels with 50.5 and a semi enclosed terrace on the upper level of approximately 13 sq metres.
Unit 2 comprises lounge, kitchen, meal areas and family room on the ground floor with 2 bedrooms, a TV room and associated wet areas on the upper level. It includes a double garage utilising a new crossing in Carrington with space for up to 2 tandem cars. Rear north facing open space of 58 sq metres is provided with an additional terrace on the upper level of 33 sq metres on top of the garage roof and substantially located between units 2 and 3. This terrace is 10 metres from the northern boundary with the flats.
Unit 3 comprises lounge/dining kitchen, meal areas and family room on the ground floor with 3 bedrooms and associated wet areas on the upper level. It includes a double garage utilising a new crossing in Orrong Road with space for 1 tandem car. Rear north facing open space of 44 sq metres is provided with an additional terrace on the upper level of 25 sq. metres on top of the garage roof with an outlook to Orrong Road.
A wrought iron picket infill fence is proposed between brick piers around the property frontage."
6. The land is zoned Residential 1 under the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and a permit is required under Clause 32.01-4 of this scheme to construct more than two dwellings on a lot. The land is within a Development Contributions Overlay which requires a levy to be charged to fund improvements to drainage systems when site coverage is increased. The State and Local Planning Policies apply to this application and the Good Design Guide is to be used in the consideration of such. The most relevant policies relied on by the responsible authority are contained in the Municipal Strategic Statement and these relate to housing diversity and density. The responsible authority's strategic direction in relation to housing is set out as follows:
The Residential Framework Plan detailed in the MSS encourages the highest residential densities in the following areas:
* Urban Villages (Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick)
* Phoenix Precinct (centred on Monash University, Caulfield Railway Station and Caulfield Racecourse)
* Within the commercial areas of neighbourhood centres (ie shop-top housing)
Medium density housing is encouraged in the following areas:
* Neighbourhood centres (commercial centres which serve as a focus for individual neighbourhoods and provide a mix of small-scale convenience retailing and service uses)
* Large transitional sites with future redevelopment potential
Elsewhere, Council seeks to maintain the scale, character and amenity of residential areas. Residential areas should remain largely unchanged, however, with regard to medium density housing some incremental growth will be catered for provided it is compatible with surrounding use character and scale.
The following discussion of Incremental Change Areas is derived from the MSS:
Incremental change could vary from location to location within the municipality. It could mean, for example, a dual occupancy on a conventional sized site in a location predominantly characterised by detached housing. It could also mean several dwellings on a site where the site is significantly larger than conventional sized sites in given location. The level of development would be limited to the extent that change could be said to be incremental. Conversely, incremental change could mean no increase or in fact a decrease in the number of dwellings per site for locations in which higher densities of development are not encouraged but already exist."
7. Mr Harper referred to Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and specified the context of the MSS. He then submitted that the planning scheme which includes the MSS and Local Planning Policy Framework had been gazetted and carries statutory weight. This meant that the Council's policy framework could not be dismissed or treated lightly and should be the primary consideration of the Tribunal in reviewing a planning application. This then led him to argue the Council's Incremental Change Policy and its relevance to this application.
8. The responsible authority's assessment of this application after the application for review had been lodged was in a similar manner to many of its previous assessments of applications that come before the Tribunal, based on its Incremental Change Policy. It is obvious that the proposal does not sit within any area where the responsible authority encourages high or medium density proposals.
9. In the officer assessment over 3 pages were given to the strategic planning issues and only one to the assessment of the proposal on its merits basically against the Good Design Guide's parameters. This has been notable in a number of other applications which this Tribunal has been involved. This Tribunal has been critical of the approach taken by Glen Eira and its interpretation of its own Incremental Change Policy. In the recent appeal No. 2000/85633, for an additional dwelling at 19 Norwood Road Caulfield North it expressed an opinion that perhaps the responsible authority should consider revising this policy based on the amount of criticism it had received from various Tribunals. Mention
of the market place was also made and this, I believe, is an important fact to consider.
10. Glen Eira is not only an established middle ring municipality that is very well serviced with a whole range of public and private infrastructure as asserted in Mr Harper's submission, it is also a very sought after place to live. If people's desires or the market place, together with ABS and Department of Infrastructure statistics are considered, as well as the Council's strategic aims for the future of its municipality, that in my opinion, very narrowly specifies the areas in which high and medium density development can take place, then I believe it is not only at variance with its existing and future residents but also could be ignoring State Planning Policies.
11. Application for review No. 1999/72060 by Member Margaret Baird was assessed by Mr Harper. He presented a number of factors that Ms Baird, in reviewing previous Tribunal decisions, had concluded could be considered in assessing incremental change. These included:
"* the presence, or absence of existing multi-unit development or medium density housing in the immediate area;
* the built form, character and scale of existing development;
* impacts on the amenity of occupants of adjoining premises or dwellings; and
12. He criticised this assessment because he believed it was based on assessing existing conditions and not taking account of strategic intent for the future roll of the area. However, he did not offer any suggestions of how otherwise the Tribunal members would be able to assess an area for incremental change. To simply look at the Council policies and strategies does not give any lead apart from a perception that responsible authority's interpretation of incremental change means no change. It denies this of course but when one looks at the responsible authority's submissions in relation to applications which it has refused or has failed to determine then this is the logical conclusion.
13. My own assessment of this area, based on Member Baird's factors, leads me to conclude that both in streetscape and change terms this site is suitable for a medium density development. From the perspective of the Orrong Road streetscape, if a single dwelling was built on this site it would be out of context with the prevailing streetscape that consists of mainly residential flat buildings on both sides of Carrington Street. If these "aberrations" had never happened then the streetscape and neighbourhood character would be a consistent and intact streetscape of predominantly single storey dwellings of inter war style with uniform setbacks and well established front gardens. That means no change. These "aberrations" are intrusive elements and depart from the prevailing form of development in form, scale, bulk and siting, according to Mr Harper. Could there not have been incremental change over a 20 year period? Could they not be also sought after as places to live close to some of the Metropolitan Area's best facilities?
14. Turning now to the proposed Special Building Overlay which Melbourne Water has already pre-empted in this matter by prescribing minimum floor levels for each of the dwellings. Mr Easton advised me that this proposed scheme amendment could mean that around 9000 homes within Glen Eira could be subject to the overlay and therefore be flood prone. Any replacement buildings or major extensions on such sites would be required to comply with minimum floor levels usually based at 300mm above the designated flood level. In the case of the proposed dwellings, the minimum floor level would range from approximately 0.9 m above natural ground level for dwelling 3 to 1.4m for dwelling 1. This is not shown on the elevations in any way and consequently they are quite misleading. They are also not true because, I am sure the developer does not intend to site the garage floor level for dwelling 1, 1.4 metres above the footpath level.
15. Although the plans were amended to show the flood levels the responsible authority and this Tribunal were not given due consideration by the submission of drawings which are totally inaccurate in the vertical.
16. In relation to the Good Design Guide's parameters the proposal has no problem meeting the techniques and criteria of most of them, however it does not necessarily meet the objectives. I have already mentioned the inaccuracy of the drawings but there are other design weaknesses in the proposal. The principal private open spaces of each proposed dwelling would be seriously overlooked and possibly overshadowed by the three storey residential flat building to the north of the proposal. No shadow diagrams were submitted to show the impact of such on the proposal. The shadow diagrams show that the proposal itself does have an impact on its own private open spaces. Overlooking, as I said is a major issue and one that cannot easily be addressed. This applies not only to the principal private open spaces but also to the habitable room windows of a number of dwellings.
17. The principal private open spaces, while being somewhat larger than the requirements of the Good Design Guide in particular for dwelling 1, are inadequate in my opinion. Dwelling 1 is a large four bedroom dwelling that not only has the smallest open space, even smaller than the two bedroom one next door,but also only 33 sq metres more of the proposed title area. This is in my view quite an imbalance.
18. The proposal does not relate well to the Carrington Grove streetscape. Although the dwellings are set back 3 metres and the garages 5 metres from the building line, they are well forward of the dwelling at No. 3 Carrington Grove which is set back 8 metres from the front building line. Even though there is a right of way between the two properties this, in my opinion, nevertheless is an impediment and it would be far better if the double garage of unit 1 is set back some 5 metres abutting the laneway. This of course would then totally alter the architectural features of the proposal.
19. The proposal is not well designed from an internal building perspective. For example the dining room for dwelling 3 is over 4.5 metres from the kitchen. The meals and family rooms are separated by the kitchen, something that is totally unnecessary in a dwelling that should have a feeling of spaciousness about it. The bathrooms and laundries are placed in odd positions and the TV room is upstairs. Also the parents' retreat in bedroom 1 could quite easily be better planned.
20. In my opinion the proposal fails on its merits and has too many problems for me to consider issuing a direction for amended plans.
21. In this instance the application should be totally redesigned and sent back to the responsible authority. The redesign should take into consideration the designated floor levels and other criticisms that I have made in this determination. This should lead to a re-assessment of the scale and form of the buildings and the layout of the whole proposal.
22. The decision of this Tribunal is that no permit shall issue.
Olcon Developments Pty Ltd
Glen Eira CC [2001] VCAT 494
The application for review was unsuccessful. The Tribunal directed that no permit shall issue. It stated that the application should be totally redesigned and sent back to the responsible authority for reassessment, but did not direct amended plans ([20]–[22]).