Palliser v Banyule CC [2026] VCAT 254

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

[1]

The applicant is entitled to pursue the third ground of review in this proceeding that the proposal would not meet the relevant ResCode objective to prevent unreasonable overshadowing.
The applicant cannot raise concerns about this aspect of the proposal.
By contrast, the landscape plan and canopy tree plan forming part of the decision plans demonstrate that the canopy tree standard in B2-7 will be met and has suitably disregarded encroachments.
Therefore, this aspect of the proposal is deemed to meet the objective in Clause 55.02-7 and this aspect is not reviewable by the applicant.
However concerned the applicant may be about the extent of replacement canopy, she cannot raise these concerns in the proceeding by reference to the ResCode provisions in Clause 55 or associated planning policy.
Likewise, I find that the proposal as shown on the decision plans comfortably meets standard B4-1 relating to daylight to existing north facing windows is therefore 'deemed to comply' with the applicable objective in clause 55.04-1.
It is therefore appropriate to strike out the first two grounds of review as misconceived.
However, under section 97 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the Tribunal is obliged to deal with matters fairly and according to their substance.
Ms Palliser is self-represented in this proceeding and does not appear to have any extensive experience with applying the planning controls.
Her further submissions in response to the tree canopy seem to raise concerns about the effect of the removal of trees 4, 5 and 9 in a way that could potentially be referable to the purpose and decision guidelines of the VPO.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (1)

Palliser v Banyule CC [2026] VCAT 254 (10 April 2026)