//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] VCAT 554
mixed. The Responsible Authority’s decision was varied. Council was directed to issue a permit generally in accordance with the Notice of Decision dated 5 December 2002, with an amended description of the...
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The Tribunal largely agreed with Council that the proposed redevelopment of the Seddon site was suitable, but considered that two parking spaces were not enough for the people occupying the two homes and two commercial premises. It required four spaces, with wider vehicle access from Vigo Street and removal of the rear store area. It considered the relevant local policy, including the policy supporting some parking waivers for small developments, but found the revised proposal reasonable in context. It did not decide whether Council had breached the file-access requirement, as that issue did not affect the merits. It also rejected the request for costs because some of Pace’s parking concerns were justified.
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.
2,161 words · generated 30/09/2026
In Pace v Maribyrnong CC [2003] VCAT 554, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s Planning and Environment List reviewed Maribyrnong City Council’s decision to grant a permit for redevelopment at 90 and 90A Charles Street, Seddon. The review was brought by Frank Pace under s 82 of the ([1]). Chris Walker Architect was identified as the permit applicant and Maribyrnong City Council as the responsible authority.
The site, approximately 250 square metres, had frontages to Charles Street and Vigo Street. It was occupied by a florist shop and a single-storey dwelling, and was in the Seddon Shopping Centre, which the Tribunal described as undergoing renewed development activity, including shop-top housing ([2]–[3]).
The proposal was to demolish the existing buildings and construct a three-storey building with two shops and two dwellings. One shop was proposed to be used as a laundrette. Two parking spaces were initially proposed at the rear, with access from Vigo Street ([4]–[5]). The site was in a Business 1 zone. The application also required approval for the building, the laundrette use and a dispensation from parking requirements under Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme ([6]–[8]).
Parking dominated the review. Pace raised concerns about limited on-street parking in the shopping centre and the lack of empirical evidence about local parking conditions. He also referred to his own business’s need for short-term parking ([16]). The permit applicant and Council supported the development and argued that reduced parking was appropriate in the local setting, where shops commonly had limited on-site parking and the policy supported activity-centre development ([11]–[15], [17]–[23]).
The Tribunal considered the development acceptable overall, but thought the parking provision was too limited for the occupiers of the proposed uses. It varied Council’s decision by requiring at least four on-site spaces with direct access from Vigo Street, deleting the store area that abutted Vigo Street. Roller doors could be installed for security ([Order], [26]–[28]). It also declined to award costs against Pace ([36]).
The Tribunal’s approach was a contextual planning assessment, not a conclusion that every development in the centre required a fixed number of on-site spaces. The Member said the proposal would enhance both the appearance and function of the Seddon Shopping Centre, and considered that customers of the small shop premises would generally be able to find parking in Charles Street nearby ([26]). The Member’s inspection of the site and locality supported that observation ([26]).
The remaining concern was parking for the people occupying the proposed uses. The Member described these as “four occupations”: two dwellings, one shop and one laundrette. The judgment does not set out a numerical calculation of the statutory or planning-scheme parking requirement, but records that the permit applicant accepted a higher theoretical requirement applied ([17], [26]). The Member considered some nominal parking should be available for occupiers or, at times, customers ([26]).
At the end of the hearing, the Member suggested deleting the rear store and providing two more spaces, bringing the total to four ([27]). Although Council had constrained the crossover to five metres, the Member considered that it could be widened to nearly the full property width so the additional spaces could be provided. The Member acknowledged that this would reduce on-street parking in Vigo Street, but considered it would also improve vehicle turning at the street’s dead end and enable more on-site parking ([28]). The permit condition ultimately reflected that revised layout.
Policy formed part of the decision. Clause 22.03-5, as recited in the reasons, supported protecting the centre’s character and local shopping function, encouraging housing above ground-floor uses, improving infrastructure and pedestrian links, and waiving new parking for specified changes of use and small developments below 100 square metres ([31]). The Tribunal said it was not its role to review Council policy, but that the policies were to be considered under s 60(1)(b) of the Act ([32]). It found the development broadly met the policy and that the reduced floor area, increased parking and available on-street parking made the revised proposal reasonable ([32]).
The Tribunal also separated Pace’s site-specific review from his broader concern about parking for his own business. It treated any request for short-term parking outside his shop as a separate matter for Council, ordinarily considered after parking studies ([29]). That observation did not determine whether there was a general parking problem in Seddon. Nor did the Tribunal decide that question on the evidence.
The costs issue was resolved by reference to the merits of Pace’s concerns. The permit applicant argued that the review was vexatious and intended to secure a commercial advantage ([24]–[25]). The Tribunal was not persuaded: some concerns about the adequacy of parking had justification, and the Tribunal itself required two further spaces. It therefore found the application was not vexatious and made no costs order ([36]).
The judgment does not purport to alter the law or announce a new general rule about parking in activity centres. It is a fact-specific determination of a planning-permit review. Its main practical reasoning is that the parking question was considered alongside the proposed uses, site layout, nearby parking and local planning policy, rather than by treating either on-site parking or a policy waiver as automatically decisive ([26]–[32]).
Before the decision, Council’s permit decision allowed the proposed development with two spaces and a parking dispensation. The Tribunal’s order changed that position: the permit description was amended to specify the development and partial dispensation, and a condition required at least four spaces with direct access to Vigo Street ([Order]). The change was therefore to the permit outcome for this site, not a stated change to the wording or legal effect of Clause 52.06 or the local policy.
The reasons mention Tong Ly & Others v City of Yarra in the permit applicant’s submissions. The quoted passage concerned the proposition that parking needs in commercial centres may require centre-wide planning rather than piecemeal requirements imposed on individual applications ([20]). That passage is counsel’s submission in this judgment. The Tribunal’s own reasons do not expressly adopt it as a rule or rely on it as the basis for the order. The Member instead made an independent assessment of this proposal and its particular parking layout.
The reasons also refer to s 51 of the Act, concerning availability of application information. The Tribunal expressed uncertainty about whether the provision required the file to remain available after a review application was lodged, and expressly declined to resolve the question because it had no influence on the merits ([35]). Accordingly, this decision should not be read as settling that statutory issue.
At [26], the Member said that “the occupiers of these buildings should be provided with some nominal car parking or that the car parking can be made available at times for customers.” In plain English, even though customers might find nearby street parking, the Tribunal wanted some on-site parking available in connection with the proposed homes and businesses.
At [27], the Member proposed deleting the rear store and adding two spaces. That passage records the practical design change considered during the hearing. It became part of the final permit outcome, rather than remaining only an informal suggestion.
At [28], the Member considered that the crossover from Vigo Street could be widened so those spaces could be built. The Member acknowledged a disadvantage: widening the access would reduce on-street parking in Vigo Street. The reasons also identified perceived benefits, namely improved turning movements at the dead end and more parking on the site. This illustrates the balancing of competing effects in the specific site layout; the judgment does not state that the same balance will apply to other sites.
At [32], the Member said the Tribunal’s role was not to review Council policy, but to consider it under s 60(1)(b). In plain English, the Tribunal treated the policy as part of the framework for deciding the permit review, rather than as a policy whose validity it was being asked to reconsider.
At [35], the Member noted difficulties with Pace’s access to the application file but did not decide whether s 51 had been breached. The point did not affect the planning merits, so the Tribunal left the legal question open.
At [36], the Member found that some of Pace’s concerns were valid and not vexatious. That finding explains why the costs application failed, despite the permit applicant’s assertion that Pace’s motives were commercial.
The decision is most directly relevant as an example involving a small urban activity-centre site with more than one street frontage, proposed shop-top housing, small commercial premises, and a request for reduced parking. The particular factors the Tribunal discussed were the existing uses, proposed two dwellings and two commercial uses, likely customer parking nearby, available on-street parking, and the ability to rearrange the site to provide two additional spaces from Vigo Street ([2]–[5], [26]–[28], [32]).
It may be informative where a planning decision-maker is weighing local policy supporting small development and activity-centre housing against parking concerns. The reasoning shows that the policy supporting waivers was considered, but did not prevent the Tribunal from requiring more parking in the revised scheme ([31]–[32]). It also shows the potential significance of parking for occupiers, not just the projected demand from customers ([26]).
The decision is less directly informative where the issue concerns a different planning scheme, a substantially different site layout, a different scale or mix of uses, or a distinct evidentiary record about parking. The judgment does not prescribe a universal parking ratio, set out a general test beyond the planning provisions it identifies, or determine whether Seddon had a centre-wide parking shortage. Its order depended on the evidence and design before the Tribunal.
The file-access discussion may be relevant to understanding an issue raised in a review, but it does not supply a resolved rule: the Tribunal left open the post-review scope of s 51 ([35]). Likewise, the discussion of short-term parking outside Pace’s business does not determine a general entitlement to reserve street parking; the Member treated that as a separate Council matter ([29]).
The supplied judgment contains no information about later cases that followed, distinguished, approved or criticised Pace v Maribyrnong CC. No later-treatment history can therefore be stated on this source alone.
Within this judgment, the only other case identified is Tong Ly & Others v City of Yarra, referred to in the permit applicant’s submissions at [20]. The judgment reproduces counsel’s reliance on a passage about centre-wide parking approaches, but the Member does not expressly adopt that passage as the governing reasoning. It should therefore not be described, on this text, as a precedent applied by the Tribunal.
The decision itself records the Member’s determination, not a later appellate review or a subsequent change in planning provisions. Its order and reasons should be distinguished: the order directs the permit variation; the reasons explain the Member’s assessment of parking, policy and costs. The supplied material cannot establish how later decision-makers have treated either the order or its reasoning.
The decision leaves several questions unresolved. First, the Tribunal did not decide whether s 51 required the application file to remain available after an application for review had been made. It acknowledged that the statutory position was unclear, but found it unnecessary to determine it because file access had no effect on the planning merits ([35]).
Second, the reasons do not determine the scale of any general parking shortage in the Seddon Shopping Centre. Pace argued that parking was scarce and that empirical evidence was lacking; the Tribunal assessed the particular proposal and its surrounding parking, but did not make a general finding about centre-wide demand ([16], [26], [32]).
Third, the reasons do not establish a general method for calculating parking demand or a general threshold for granting a dispensation. The permit applicant referred to standard rates and conceded a higher theoretical requirement, but the Member’s decision rests on a contextual assessment and the revised plan, not a stated numerical formula ([17], [26]–[28]).
Fourth, the order required four spaces, but the reasons do not provide a detailed allocation of those spaces among the two dwellings, shop and laundrette. The Member described nominal parking for occupiers or possible customer use, without prescribing an allocation system ([26]–[28]).
Finally, the decision does not resolve Pace’s broader request for short-term parking near his business or the access issues at the rear of his property. The Member treated the former as a separate Council matter and the latter as an individual matter constrained by logistical and financial considerations ([29]–[30]). Those points were not part of the permit variation ordered in this review.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST APPLICATION NO. P3395/2002
New development, two dwellings, shop and laundromat, car parking, whether dispensation appropriate, local policy.
RESPONDENT (Permit Applicant): Chris Walker Architect
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY: Maribyrnong City Council
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2003] VCAT 554
1. The Responsible Authority's decision is varied.
2. The Responsible Authority must issue a permit generally in accordance with the Notice of Decision dated 5 December 2002 but with the following changes:
(i) The description of the approval is the development of a three storey building comprising of a two shop premises and two dwellings (use of one of the shops as a laundrette) and partial dispensation in parking requirements specified in Clause 52.06 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.
(ii) Condition 1 shall have a part (f) inserted to read:
Provide not less than four car parking spaces on site with direct access to Vigo Street (and delete the store area abutting Vigo Street), roller doors may be installed for security purposes.
Mr R Hocking, Town Planner represented the Responsible Authority. Mr Frank Pace, objector represented himself. Ms J McQuade, Town Planner represented the Permit Applicant.
1. This is an Application for Review pursuant to s.82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against the decision of Maribyrnong City Council which issued a Notice of Decision to grant a permit for a three storey building comprising two shops (one of which would be used as a laundrette), two dwellings and dispensation in car parking.
2. The subject site is located on the northern side of Charles Street diagonally opposite Gamon Street in Seddon. The site has dual frontages to Charles Street (12.5m) and Vigo Street. The site is currently occupied by a single storey florist shop and a two bedroom single storey dwelling. Land area is about 250m2.
3. The subject site is situated in the Seddon Shopping Centre which was essentially developed inter war and until recent times has largely remained unchanged. The Tribunal was told that in recent times there had been revitalisation of the shopping centre and greater activity in redevelopment of sites including the provision of shop top housing.
4. The proposal involves demolition of the existing shop, dwelling and associated outbuildings and construction of a three storey building for two shops and two residential apartments. Two car parking spaces are proposed at the rear with direct access from Vigo Street. The Tribunal was told that there was a possibility of retaining the existing shop although much depended on the structural stability of that building.
5. The two new shop premises will have frontages to Charles Street, there will also be pedestrian access for the two dwellings above. Both dwellings are located over two levels with large north facing living areas at second level and a range of outdoor living spaces over both levels. Apartment 1 has two bedrooms while Apartment 2 has one bedroom. Each dwelling will also have a studio provided on the third storey.
6. The subject site is zoned Business 1 under the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme and the relevant purposes of this zone:
* To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
* To encourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other complimentary commercial, entertainment and community uses.
7. A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Approval is also required if one of the shop uses is to be used as a laundrette. In addition, car parking dispensation is sought pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme.
8. The Tribunal was told there was also a Development Contributions Overlay No. 6 which requires a cash contribution for the development of one additional dwelling.
9. Various planning policies and provisions contained in the planning scheme of relevance in this matter are contained in the following clauses:
* Clause 22.03-5 Retail and Development Activity Centre Policy -
10. At the review hearing all parties made oral presentations. Mr Hocking and Ms McQuade provided detailed written submissions. Having regard to the submissions made the principle issue in this application relates to the provision of car parking.
11. Mr Hocking on behalf of the Responsible Authority argued that the Responsible Authority is of a view that a town planning permit should be granted for this development. He advised that Council has carefully considered the application in regard to all of the planning policies and Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme.
12. Mr Hocking argued that the Council has adopted a standard and regular approach to the waiver and reduction of car parking facilities to ensure consistency with the Seddon Village.
13. He advised the reduction in the provision of on-site car parking for the proposal is appropriate in the context of the criteria set out in Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme and, in particular, is in accordance with the provision of car parking for almost every other business within the Seddon Village Shopping Centre. He advised the use of the land for two commercial buildings with two on-site car spaces is appropriate and the two residential apartments above will be able to take advantage of car parking within the immediate neighbourhood.
14. Mr Hocking argued the proposal is of an appropriate height and form, is well designed with appropriate setbacks at the upper level and will make a positive contribution to the streetscape of Charles Street, Seddon especially when viewed along Gamon Street.
15. Mr Hocking referred to Clause 12, Metropolitan Strategy dealing with neighbourhood activity centres, which encourages higher density housing in and around neighbourhood activity centres. It should be designed to fit the context and enhance the character of the area while providing a variety of housing options for different types of households. Development of these centres can improve access to local services and accommodate the changing needs of those who do not want to break their links with their community". Mr Hocking referred to Clause 22.03-5 which refers to the Seddon Shopping Centre, he advised it is policy to:
* Protect and enhance the Seddon Centres period character and buildings.
* Preserve the Seddon Centres local shopping and services nature and to encourage the provision of suitable space for restaurants and other entertainment, leisure and recreation activities.
16. Mr Pace raised a number of concerns about this application including:
* The unavailability of the planning permit file in the two weeks proceeding the application for review.
* The poor availability of car parking in Charles Street. He advised there were in the order of 25 shops with only 12 on-street car parking spaces in the vicinity of those shops.
* Sought no further car parking dispensations under Clause 52 until such time as proper surveys have been undertaken of existing parking practices in and around the Seddon Shopping Centre.
* Due to the nature of his business there was a need to provide short term parking after 5pm in Charles Street.
* Inadequate car parking for the proposed development and acknowledgement of some problems in the area by reference to a separate Council resolution which sought "that Council's Transport and Special Projects Unit prepare a report".
* The lack of any factual or empirical evidence to support Council Officers assertion that there was no parking problem in the Seddon Shopping Centre.
* The assertion that the area cannot sustain any more parking on-street.
17. Mr McQuade on behalf of the permit applicant argued that the fundamental issue of this application related to the car parking provision. She referred to the various standard parking rates for the proposed uses and conceded that a higher car parking requirement than shown was theoretically required. She argued the design process involved an assessment of the constrains and opportunities of the site. She advised the site has two street frontages which facilitates the rear access to car parking off Vigo Street. She advised that Council stipulated that a maximum crossover of 5m would be allowed at this frontage. She advised that feasibility work on the early stages of the design process investigated how car parking could be provided on the site. She also showed a plan demonstrating that eight car parking spaces would consume the entire ground floor of the site. She claimed this was not a desirable use of the ground floor space within a Business 1 zone and precludes opportunities for active ground level businesses.
18. Ms McQuade referred to Clause 52.06-1 which is the section that sets out the decision guidelines in the consideration for a reduction or waiving of the standard parking requirement. Ms McQuade sought some credit for the existing shop building and dwelling.
19. Ms McQuade also argued that there was strong policy basis at State (Melbourne 2030) and local level to support this application (Clause 22.05-6). Ms McQuade also referred to a range of public transport available to the Seddon Shopping Centre and advised that given the local nature of the shopping strip access by public transport, it is unlikely to be the most common mode of transport. She also advised that the shops are intended to provide day to day services for local residents and the passing trade provided by bus and train commuters. She advised that for example, a florist and laundromat set up in the two shops are businesses that would capitalise on the passing trade of commuters. She argued that given the current characteristics of the Seddon Shopping Centre and the proposed use, a waiving of the car parking requirement is justified given the following factors:
* Multi purpose trips to the Seddon Shopping Centre precinct will generate customers for the proposed shops;
* The shops are within walking distance of the local residential area and along pedestrian routes to public transport; and
* On-street car parking is available within walking distance of the subject site.
20. Ms McQuade in referring to the empirical nature of car parking demand being an ongoing issue for Councils and regularly raised before various appeals tribunals. She made reference to Tong Ly & Others v City of Yarra (1994/49821) where Member Gibson in referring to a supermarket proposal in Victoria Street, Richmond stated:
The Tribunal has frequently commented that the parking needs of such areas cannot be met by the piecemeal imposition of parking requirements or cash-in-lieu payments on individual applications as they emerge. They can only act as a disincentive to the economic viability of the centre and offer no guarantee of effectively redressing the parking problems which the centre experiences...
If additional parking is necessary for the orderly planning of the centre, then it should be provided in such a way as it will benefit the centre as a whole and, if necessary the cost should be shared by all those who benefit...
The Tribunal recognises that it is planning policy ... to ensure adequate off-street parking is provided wherever demand is generated. However, it is too restrictive to view this as requiring only the provision of on-site parking. In areas such as Victoria Street where there are saturated car parking conditions, adequate off-street parking will need to be provided by other means. Councils ought to develop strategies for this rather than regarding the issue as being too hard and seeking ad-hoc, and often unsuitable, accretions to the car parking supply by the imposition of requirements on individual permit applications. This approach only fetters the development of such commercial areas and results in primary land use decision being dictated by the secondary issue of car parking.
21. She concluded by arguing that the addition of one dwelling and one shop within a shopping centre comprising of more than 40 businesses on its own inappropriately exacerbate any existing or future car parking demands. She claimed that the application has provided a catalyst for Council to assess the existing and future parking needs of the Seddon Shopping Precinct rather than dealing with the matter on a peace meal, ad hoc basis. She claimed this approach is sound planning practice and consistent with principles endorsed by the Tribunal and more recently by the Department of Infrastructure in the Victorian Planning Provisions Practice Note - Parking Precinct Plan released in July 2002.
22. Ms McQuade also referred to the support in both State and local policy which supported the waiving of the provision of new parking spaces for change of use and small new development of less than 100m2 of floor area. She advised this policy clearly recognises the benefits of new small developments and supports a waiving of car parking for limited incremental growth within the centre. She argued the proposal is a small development providing a new shop with a floor area of 72m2 and additions to the existing shop of 28m2. She argued that while new floor area exceeds 100m2 the proposed commercial development is supported in the principle of Council's policy to allow car parking to be waived to allow for small developments and limited incremental growth.
23. Ms McQuade argued that Mr Pace's grounds for review were irrelevant and argued that the proposed use seeks to be considered within context of the Business 1 zone, she argued a comprehensive and holistic solution would be appropriate if there is currently or in the future a parking shortage in the area. She argued it would be contrary to the principles of reasonable and fair planning to seek remedies to the broader problems of a shopping centre by prejudicing new or changing uses within that centre.
24. Ms McQuade also sought costs on behalf of her applicant pursuant to s.150(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. She argued that it is apparent that the primary concern of Mr Pace is the overall parking situation in Seddon Shopping Precinct in relation to his restaurant, takeaway and delivery business. She advised Mr Pace currently relies on on-street parking for the delivery vehicle associated with his operation. She advised he has expressed that the nature of the delivery business requires a permanent car parking space for the convenience of delivery drivers to come and go from the area. She referred to his objection and letter to the owners of the subject site. Ms McQuade argued that the proposed Application for Review was vexatious and submitted that Mr Pace has raised his Application for Review based on a particular commercial need of his business and on this basis the grounds of application are vexatious and intended to secure a commercial advantage.
25. Ms McQuade argued that the lack of merit and plausible argument of this case are consistent with previous determinations of the Tribunal in awarding costs against an applicant on grounds that the review was vexatious and/or to secure commercial advantage. She advised combined with this the Applicant has consistently made it clear that the primary basis for his concerns are on potential commercial impact.
26. At the conclusion of the hearing I gave the parties my preliminary findings on this application. I agree the proposed development is one which will enhance the appearance and function of the Seddon Shopping Centre and should be approved. Accordingly I consider the Responsible Authority's decision is essentially correct. I do hold concern about the availability of car parking particularly for occupiers of the four occupations. Namely two dwellings, one shop and one laundromat. As I explain I am satisfied that most customers to these small shop premises are likely to find car parking in Charles Street in close proximity to these shops. My inspection of the site and general locality reaffirms that observation. However, I consider it appropriate that the occupiers of these buildings should be provided with some nominal car parking or that the car parking can be made available at times for customers.
27. At the conclusion of the hearing I suggested that deletion of the rear store and provision of two additional car parking spaces to give a total of four spaces would seem to be a reasonable outcome in this particular matter.
28. It is acknowledged that the Responsible Authority placed a design constraint on the proposal by insisting on a 5m wide only crossover from Vigo Street. I consider this matter can be dispensed with, and instead the crossover could extend for almost the full width of the property so that the two additional car parking spaces can be provided. If necessary the applicant could provide a roller shutter door to each of these car spaces if it so desires. I acknowledge this would reduce on-street parking in Vigo Street, but such change would result in better opportunity for vehicles to make turning movements at the dead-end of Vigo Street and better on site parking.
29. During the hearing I held discussion with all parties and Mr Pace in particular about some of the concerns raised by him. I acknowledge that some of his concerns relate to his own business operation and his desire to have short term car parking specifically allocated outside his shop in Charles Street. As I advised at the hearing I consider this is a separate matter for determination by this Council and such matter would usually be determined after car parking studies are undertaken. However such matters are for the Maribyrnong Council to consider.
30. During the hearing I also made suggestions on possible methods to improve vehicle access to the rear of Mr Pace's property. However there seems to be a number of logistical and financial constraints on the removal of a tree and gates. These are individual matters for Mr Pace to address. It is not for the Tribunal to comment further.
31. I acknowledge the policy direction in Clause 22.03-5 which seeks to:
* Protect and enhance the Seddon Centre's period character and buildings.
* Preserve the Seddon Centre's local shopping and services nature, and to encourage the provision of space suitable for restaurants and other entertainment, leisure and recreation activities.
* Encourage above ground level housing within the centre, and high density housing in selected locations within walking distance of it.
* Improve its infrastructure and amenities, including the development of a safe, well lit and presented, sheltered pedestrian pathway system linking all parts of the centre with car parking and public transport.
* Waive the provision of new parking spaces for changes of use and small new developments of less than 100 square metres of floor area.
32. It is not the Tribunal's role to review the Council policy appearing in the planning scheme. Rather these policies are to be considered pursuant to Clause 60(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. I am satisfied that, by and large, the development does meet that policy and with the reduction in floor area and increase in car parking off Vigo Street I am satisfied the proposed development is reasonable having regard to the availability of on-street parking in Charles Street and Vigo Street and the policy directions in Clause 22.04-5 of the planning scheme.
33. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Pace raised concern about the unavailability of the application file. Mr Hocking explained that in the two weeks preceding the review hearing the file was in his possession rather than at the Responsible Authority's offices. Mr Hocking advised the Tribunal that he had contacted Mr Pace and informed him that the file was in his possession and he could have access to it. Mr Pace had concerns about how the file was to be made available to him.
34. During the hearing the Tribunal gave Mr Pace the opportunity to examine the file before he completed his submission. He denied such offer.
35. Section 51 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires the Responsible Authority to make a copy of every application and the prescribed information in respect of it available at it office for any person to inspect during office hours free of charge until the end of the latest period during which an Application for Review may be made under s.77, 79, 80 or 82 in relation to the application or the permit. It is not clear in this section of the Act whether the file needs to be made available after an Application for Review is made. In this case it is not necessary to go into the detail of this matter, suffice to say that there were difficulties for Mr Pace in viewing the application in the two weeks preceding the hearing (which included the Easter and Anzac Day holiday breaks). I might add that this Application for Review had been lodged in November 2002 and the file remained in the Council's possession until the day proceeding the Easter break. Having regard to Section 51 and the explanation given, I have doubts that the Responsible Authority did in fact breach Section 51 although that is not really a matter which has any influence on the merits of the planning application.
36. At the conclusion of the hearing I remarked that I was reluctant to award costs in this Application for Review. I consider that some of the points raised by Mr Pace in questioning the rate of car parking dispensation had some justification and I consider the car parking was a bit light on. Accordingly I required two additional car parking spaces on site. Whilst Mr Pace outlined a number of concerns which seemed jumbled into a general car parking issue, some of the matters he raised were valid and I am satisfied they were not vexatious Accordingly no costs are awarded.
Pace
Maribyrnong CC [2003] VCAT 554
The Responsible Authority’s decision was varied. Council was directed to issue a permit generally in accordance with the Notice of Decision dated 5 December 2002, with an amended description of the approved development and a condition requiring at least four on-site car-parking spaces with direct access to Vigo Street. The store area abutting Vigo Street was to be deleted; roller doors could be installed. No costs were awarded.