Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2012-05-04

For the reasons set out above, we affirm the decision of Council and direct that no permit issue.

[1] We have considered all submissions and evidence presented by the parties although we do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[2] P3341/2002 Metrobuild Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC and Douglas & Valerie Sloan 13 May 2003 (unreported)

[5] At page 20 of submission on behalf of Council.

[7] At clauses 11.01, 11.04-1, 16.01-2, 16.01-4, 18.01-2, 21.03, 21.04 and 22.05 of the Scheme.

[8] At clauses 11.04-2, 21.04-2 and 34.02 of the Scheme.

[9] At clause 15.01-2 and 22.02 of the Scheme.

[10] At clauses 11.04-2, 15.01-1, 15.01-2, 15.01-5, 16.01-4, 21.02-2, 22.02, 34.02-4 and 52.35 of the Scheme.

[11] At clauses 15.03-1, 22.04 and 43.01 of the Scheme.

[12] As contained in the Prahran Conservation Study, Conservation Controls (Nigel Lewis) 1983, a reference document at Cluse 22.04-4 of the Scheme.

[13] Heritage Guidelines City of Stonnington, 2002 a reference document at Clause 22.04-4 of the Scheme.

[14] Determined by the Tribunal in Innominata Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2008] VCAT 1085

[15] In reaching our conclusions about parking and traffic, we considered the written evidence of Mr Coath and Council's views.

[16] We have had regard to the assessment of the tree in the written evidence of Mr Galbraith.

Environment Act 1987

R.T.S.Technologies Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 570 (4 May 2012)

R.T.S.Technologies Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 570