Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2018-09-25

For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. Conditions 7 and 8 are deleted with no other changes necessary to the permit, other than the renumbering of the conditions.

While not a matter before me I note from my review of the officer report and permit issued that permit description includes 'associated reduction in car parking requirements'. Given condition 1 requires that car parking must meet the requirements of clause 52.06 with reference to the parking overlay at clause 45.09, I question if the permit includes a reduction in car parking requirements. I do not make any findings on this, I simply note it as an issue that the council and the applicant may wish to review, and if needed the council can exercise its power under Section 71 of the Act to correct a clerical error if there is one.

[1] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing, and the statements of grounds filed; 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.

[3] Melbourne Water v Domus Design Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] VSC 114 at paragraph 77.

[5] E.g. Capital City Zone Schedule 1 - Sub-clause 3.0 - Buildings and works, Permit Requirement.

[6] An explanatory document, sitting outside of the Melbourne Planning Scheme provides a guide about how to calculate a public benefit relative to an exceedance of the floor area ratio. One public benefit is the provision of social housing, specifically valued as a benefit against the uplift gained by exceeding the defined floor area ratio of the planning scheme.

[7] Second reading of the Planning and Building Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability and Other Maters) Bill 2017 - as cited in Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Wednesday 21 June 2017, Book 8, pages 1920 - 1921, as tabled in the hearing by Mr Vorchheimer.

[9] I have documented the email in full in Appendix A

[10] I was not provided a copy of the email, and therefore have relied upon the words in Mr Wong's submission as a true transcript of the 27 October 2017 email.

[11] Noting that similar findings were made in Merri Merri Developments Pty Ltd v Darebin CC includes summary)(Red Dot) [2010] VCAT 1045. - Notably paragraph 47. Similar findings were also made by the tribunal in Green v Hobsons Bay CC (Includes Summary) (Red Dot) (Correction) [2013] VCAT 2091 (8 January 2014) - notably paragraph 164 and 165

[12] As tabled by Mr Wong at the hearing.

[13] For example, as tabled to me, Land Management Surveys v Strathbogie SC (includes Summary)(Red Dot) [2012] VCAT 77 and Nacha Moore Land Surveyors Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2012] VCAT 365.

[15] The council officer report refers to this building being 29 storeys. The applicant's location plan identifies 820 Whitehorse Road as having approval for 30 storeys.

[16] See ZL Prospect Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2018] VCAT 750 - notably paragraphs 11 to 14.

Environment Act 1987

Panorama Investment (Box Hill) Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2018] VCAT 1490 (25 September 2018)

Panorama Investment (Box Hill) Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2018] VCAT 1490

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (16 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

Panorama Investment (Box Hill) Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2018] VCAT 1490 (25 September 2018)