VICVCAT

Palmdale PL v Manningham CC [1999] VCAT 710

[1999] VCAT 710

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|1999-04-30

At a glance

AI case summary

Result

appellant. The Tribunal directed the applicant to produce further amended plans modifying Dwellings 1 and 8 and the front fence to moderate streetscape impact, with opportunity for further submissions from...

Key principles

The Tribunal held that the subject land, having been rezoned from Residential D to Residential C without any special restraints or Section 173 agreement limiting development,...
The Tribunal held that the proposed development, at a density of approximately one dwelling per 492 square metres, constituted a very low density development for a Residential C...
The Tribunal held that the generous setbacks (4–9 metres to the east, 8–12 metres to the south) combined with proposed landscaping would ensure that the development would not...
The Tribunal held that the 'fruit pickers hut' at the rear of the site, while having historical associations with the area's orchard history, lacked intrinsic heritage value and...

Issues before the court

Whether the proposed multi-dwelling development constituted overdevelopment and excessive density having regard to the established pattern of...

Plain English Summary

A developer wanted to build eight large two-storey townhouses on a big block in Templestowe. The local council refused permission, saying it was too dense, would harm the neighbourhood's character, and would knock down an old fruit pickers' hut. The Tribunal said the block had been rezoned to allow more development, so the density was actually quite low for that zone. The Tribunal also said the old hut wasn't special enough to save. However, the two houses at the front would be too big and dominant from the street, and the front fence was too massive. Rather than refusing the permit entirely, the Tribunal told the developer to go away and redesign those front houses to be smaller or single-storey, and to reduce the fence size.

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.

Judgment (1 paragraphs)

[1]

The applicant for review and permit applicant is directed to produce further amended plans, in which proposed Dwellings 1 and 8 and the proposed front fence, are modified to moderate the streetscape impact of the proposal (generally in accordance with the reasons set out above). When completed such amended plans are to be provided to the Tribunal, the Responsible Authority, and the other parties to this application for review. The Responsible Authority and the other parties in the application for review have 14 days, from the date on which the amended plans were provided to them, to make further written submissions to the Tribunal. Such further written submissions must be limited to issues arising from the amendments to the plans circulated at the direction of the Tribunal.

Palmdale PL v Manningham CC [1999] VCAT 710

At a glance

Result

Key principles

Issues before the court

Plain English Summary

Judgment (1 paragraphs)

Cited legislation

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

Palmdale PL v Manningham CC [1999] VCAT 710 (30 April 1999)

AI Analysis