//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] VCAT 469
procedural. The Tribunal made ten procedural directions, including amending the permit applicant's name, broadening the conditions under review, updating the statement of grounds, requiring representation of...
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Tribunal did not decide whether the planning permit conditions should stand or change. It made procedural arrangements for the review: it corrected the permit applicant's name, added several permit conditions to the review, updated the stated grounds, required Pentridge Village Pty Ltd to be represented, and set deadlines for written responses and evidence. It also scheduled mediation and a later hearing. The document does not say what happened after those scheduled steps.
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.
2,011 words · generated 29/09/2026
This document is a procedural directions decision in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal's Planning List. It concerns a review application by Pentridge Village Pty Ltd relating to conditions of Planning Permit No MPS 1999/0989, issued on 2 August 2000. The subject land is described as the former Pentridge Prison site on Urquhart Street, Coburg. The review focused on a portion of the proposed sale known as “The Walled City”, rather than the whole site.
The Tribunal held a directions hearing on 28 February 2001. Member Tonia Komesaroff made ten directions that day. The directions are expressly stated to be made pursuant to s 80 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The document does not reproduce that provision or explain its legal test or scope.
The directions addressed several case-management matters. First, the permit applicant's name was changed from Grandview Square Pty Ltd to Pentridge Village Pty Ltd, matching the name of the Applicant for Review. Second, the conditions review was expanded from a review of Condition 2 to include Conditions 5(a), 14, 15, 30, 34 and 47. Third, the statement of grounds was amended to reflect revised grounds in Attachment B to a letter dated 19 December 2000.
The Tribunal also required Pentridge Village Pty Ltd to be represented at future proceedings until the review was completed. The remarks explain that Council was concerned because the barrister appearing in the review represented prospective purchasers, Harry One Pty Ltd and Luciano One Pty Ltd, rather than Pentridge Village Pty Ltd. The remarks record that a director of Pentridge Village Pty Ltd attended, but that the company's legal representative was unavailable because of another proceeding [7].
The remaining directions set a timetable. Pentridge Village Pty Ltd was to respond by 4.00 pm on 9 March 2001 to matters raised in the Responsible Authority's letter of 4 December 2000, including suggested mechanisms for achieving the objectives of Condition 2. The Council was to provide a position paper by 4.00 pm on 16 March 2001. Copies of responses and position papers were to be served simultaneously on the Tribunal, Heritage Victoria and the Merri Creek Management Committee. Mediation was listed for 20 March 2001, and a three-day hearing was listed for 23, 24 and 26 April 2001. Evidence-in-chief was to be filed and served not later than ten business days before the hearing.
The record is limited to directions and remarks. It does not disclose whether the mediation took place, whether the scheduled hearing proceeded, or how the substantive review was ultimately resolved.
The document does not give a reasoned ruling on the substantive planning merits. Its function is to organise the review and identify the matters that would be addressed in later proceedings. It would therefore be inaccurate to treat it as deciding whether the permit conditions were valid, appropriate, or should be altered.
The directions respond to issues apparent in the record. The first direction aligns the name on the permit application with the name of the Applicant for Review. The second and third directions define the conditions and grounds that would be considered. Those changes establish the procedural scope for the next steps, but the document does not explain the legal basis for allowing those particular amendments beyond the general statement that the directions were made under s 80.
Representation was a distinct concern. The remarks state that Mr Wright QC appeared for Harry One Pty Ltd and Luciano One Pty Ltd, who were prospective purchasers and not parties to the review, while the review was being prosecuted in the name of Pentridge Village Pty Ltd [6]. Council raised concern that he did not actually represent Pentridge Village Pty Ltd. Direction 4 responds by requiring Pentridge Village Pty Ltd to be represented at all future proceedings. The decision does not determine any wider question about a representative's authority or the legal consequences of the arrangement described.
The timetable gave each side an opportunity to state its position before mediation and the scheduled hearing. In particular, the Applicant for Review was directed to respond to Council's 4 December 2000 letter and to include suggested mechanisms for achieving Condition 2's objectives. Council was then to set out its concerns in a position paper. These requirements are procedural. They do not indicate that the Tribunal accepted either party's position on Condition 2.
The site context helps explain why several bodies were to receive copies of the parties' materials. The remarks state that the whole former prison site was on the Heritage Victoria Register [3], and that Heritage Victoria and the Merri Creek Management Committee attended as interested observers, not parties, because neither had lodged a statement of grounds [4]. The directions required service on both bodies. The decision does not state that either body had party status or make a substantive finding about their role in the review.
The text records no substantive change in planning law. It is a case-specific procedural decision, and it does not formulate a general legal principle about planning permits, heritage registration, review rights, or the amendment of grounds.
Before the directions, the review was described as concerning Condition 2, the permit applicant was named Grandview Square Pty Ltd, and the grounds had been supplied by the Applicant for Review. After the directions, the permit applicant's name was Pentridge Village Pty Ltd, the review encompassed Condition 2 and Conditions 5(a), 14, 15, 30, 34 and 47, and the statement of grounds reflected the revised grounds in Attachment B dated 19 December 2000. These are changes to the procedural framework of this proceeding, not stated changes to the law.
The Tribunal cited s 80 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 as the basis for the directions. Because the text does not set out the section's wording, this document alone does not support a fuller account of the provision or a conclusion about its operation in other cases.
The remarks record that the site was on the Heritage Victoria Register and was not subject to heritage overlay controls in the Moreland Planning Scheme. They describe the latter as reflecting a legislative desire to avoid overlapping controls by different supervisory authorities [5]. That is the Member's recorded explanation of the context. The decision does not analyse the relevant heritage legislation or decide a general question about how registration interacts with planning-scheme controls.
The Tribunal stated: “The name of the Applicant for Permit is amended from ‘Grandview Square Pty Ltd’ to ‘Pentridge Village Pty Ltd’, to coincide with the name of the Applicant for Review” (Direction 1). In plain English, the name on the permit application was changed in the proceeding so that it matched the company seeking review.
Direction 2 says that the scope of the conditions review was “amended from the original review of Condition 2 of the permit to include a review against Conditions 5(a), 14, 15, 30, 34 and 47 of the permit”. This means those additional conditions were brought within the review's stated scope. It does not mean the Tribunal had decided that any condition was defective.
Direction 5 required the Applicant for Review to respond to Council's letter dated 4 December 2000 and include “suggested mechanisms for achieving the objectives desired in Condition 2”. In plain English, the company had to explain how the objectives of that condition might be achieved. The document does not reproduce those objectives or state what mechanisms were proposed.
The remarks explain the representation direction: Council was concerned that counsel did not “actually represent Pentridge Village Pty Ltd” [7]. The direction required the company to be represented at future proceedings. It was a response to the concern recorded in this proceeding, not a finding about representation arrangements generally.
Finally, the remarks state that Heritage Victoria and the Merri Creek Management Committee were “not parties to the review, having not lodged any statement of grounds” [4]. In plain English, they attended as observers and were not identified as parties who had formally joined the review. The directions nevertheless required them to receive copies of the specified written materials.
The decision provides limited support for identifying fact patterns that might be procedurally comparable. It records a review where the permit applicant's name differed from the Applicant for Review's name, and the Tribunal directed that the name be amended to coincide. It also records a review whose scope was expanded to cover additional permit conditions, with the statement of grounds updated by reference to revised grounds already sent to the Tribunal and Responsible Authority.
A further potentially comparable feature is a representation concern: the representative appearing in the name of the Applicant for Review was described as representing prospective purchasers who were not parties, while Council questioned whether the Applicant for Review was itself represented [6]-[7]. The Tribunal required the named Applicant for Review to be represented in future proceedings. The document does not establish a general threshold for such a direction.
The case also involved a site with a complex development and heritage context. The remarks describe a proposed sale of part of a larger former prison site, and the review concerned only the Walled City portion, comprising 47 apartments and associated facilities [2]. The site was on the Heritage Victoria Register [3], while the remarks state there was no heritage overlay in the Moreland Planning Scheme [5]. These facts explain the context of the dispute but do not establish a substantive planning or heritage rule.
Because the decision is procedural and does not state a general test, it should not be treated as establishing that identical directions will follow in other cases. Its text supports comparison of procedural circumstances, not prediction of outcomes.
The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later cases, subsequent appellate review, or later treatment of this decision. No precedent relationships can therefore be identified from this source. The document itself is a directions decision made by a VCAT Planning List Member, not a reported determination of the substantive planning review.
The title citation, Pentridge Village PL v Moreland CC [2001] VCAT 469, identifies the decision, but the text supplied here does not establish whether later tribunals or courts applied, followed, distinguished, or otherwise considered it. Any account of later treatment would require additional source material beyond this judgment.
The record does not reveal the outcome of the review. It schedules mediation for 20 March 2001 and a hearing for 23, 24 and 26 April 2001, but does not state whether either event proceeded or what orders followed.
The substantive content of Condition 2 is not reproduced. The Tribunal required the Applicant for Review to suggest mechanisms for achieving its objectives, but the objectives themselves and the parties' proposed mechanisms are absent. The other permit conditions added to the review are also not set out.
The document does not explain the legal test or scope of s 80 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. It cites the section as authority for the directions, but does not quote or interpret it.
The roles and positions of the prospective purchasers are only briefly described. They were said to be purchasing part of the site and were represented by counsel appearing in the review, but the decision does not determine their legal interests or explain any arrangements between them and Pentridge Village Pty Ltd. Nor does it state what representation was arranged for the company after Direction 4.
Finally, the remarks describe the site’s heritage status and the absence of heritage overlay controls, but do not analyse the governing heritage legislation or make a substantive finding about the implications of the register listing. Those questions cannot be resolved from this directions decision 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.
The Tribunal directs pursuant to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, s.80 that:
1. The name of the Applicant for Permit is amended from `Grandview Square Pty Ltd' to `Pentridge Village Pty Ltd', to coincide with the name of the Applicant for Review, Pentridge Village Pty Ltd.
2. The scope of the conditions review is amended from the original review of Condition 2 of the permit to include a review against Conditions 5(a), 14, 15, 30, 34 and 47 of the permit.
3. The statement of grounds supplied by the Applicant for Review is amended to reflect the revised grounds of appeal contained in Attachment B under cover of letter dated 19 December 2000 from the Applicant for Review to the Tribunal and to the Responsible Authority.
4. The Applicant for Review, Pentridge Village Pty Ltd, must be represented at all future proceedings until this application for review is completed.
5. The Applicant for Review must respond to the matters set out in the letter dated 4 December 2000 from the Responsible Authority to Pentridge Village Pty Ltd no later than 4.00pm on 9 March 2001 and, in its response, must include suggested mechanisms for achieving the objectives desired in Condition 2 to Planning Permit No MPS 1999/0989 issued on 2 August 2000.
6. The Responsible Authority must respond to the Applicant for Review's response above, in a position paper setting out its concerns and delivered to the Applicant for Review no later than 4.00pm on 16 March 2001.
7. A copy of all responses and position papers, both by the Responsible Authority and the Applicant for Review, must be served on the Tribunal, Heritage Victoria and the Merri Creek Management Committee simultaneously with service on the parties to the review.
8. This case is listed for a mediation for one day to be conducted on 20 March 2001, before a planning lawyer.
9. The hearing of this matter is listed for three days on 23, 24 and 26 April 2001 before a Tribunal composed of a legally qualified member in the Planning List.
10. Not later than ten business days prior to the hearing, each party must file with the Tribunal and serve on the other party a copy of the report or statement containing the evidence-in-chief of any lay witness and of any expert witness on whose evidence that party intends to rely.
_____________________________
Mr Michael Wright QC, with him Mr Richard Attiwill of Counsel, instructed by Mr Egils Stokans of Russell Kennedy, Solicitors, appeared for Pentridge Village Pty Ltd
Ms J Lardner and Ms A Kirwan represented Moreland City Council.
1. Ms Lardner for the City of Moreland was concerned about fragmentation of a site that was supposed to be dealt with comprehensively under a Comprehensive Development Plan in the new VPP format Moreland Planning Scheme.
2. Pentridge Village Pty Ltd, the current owner of the site, is selling portion only of the entire Pentridge Village Site to Harry One Pty Ltd and Luciano One Pty Ltd, but Application for Review 2000/074229 only concerns a portion of that part to be sold to these two companies viz. "The Walled City" portion. That walled city portion will comprise 47 apartments and associated facilities such as gymnasium, creche, café, pool and like facilities.
3. The entire former Pentridge Prison site is registered as a heritage place under the Heritage Victoria Register.
4. Heritage Victoria and the Merri Creek Management Committee are not parties to the review, having not lodged any statement of grounds. They attend as interested observers.
5. The subject land is not subject to any heritage overlay controls in the Moreland Planning Scheme, because of its place on the Heritage Register and the legislative desire to avoid a multiplicity of overlapping controls by different supervisory authorities.
6. Michael Wright QC who appears today with Mr Richard Attiwill for the Applicant for Review, only represents Harry One Pty Ltd and Luciano One Pty Ltd, prospective purchasers and non-parties to this Review, but will be prosecuting this review in the name of the Applicant for Review, Pentridge Village Pty Ltd.
7. Because of the concerns of Council that Mr Wright QC does not actually represent Pentridge Village Pty Ltd, the Tribunal has issued a direction that Pentridge Village Pty Ltd be represented at all future proceedings until this application for review process is completed. A director of Pentridge Village Pty Ltd was present in the gallery of the hearing room, but his legal representative, Mr Cicero of Best Hooper, was unavailable as he was prosecuting a different Application for Review in a different hearing room.
_____________________________
Pentridge Village PL
Moreland CC [2001] VCAT 469
The Tribunal made ten procedural directions, including amending the permit applicant's name, broadening the conditions under review, updating the statement of grounds, requiring representation of Pentridge Village Pty Ltd, setting written-response and evidence deadlines, and listing mediation and a hearing.