//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] VCAT 1429
respondent. The review application was disallowed. The Tribunal directed that no permit be granted for planning permit application BOR 00/1041 for construction of a dual carport at 23B Frater Street, Kew East.
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The Tribunal refused the Randalls' review of the Council's decision not to grant a permit for a dual carport. The key concern was not simply that the carport had a flat roof. The Tribunal accepted that Frater Street had varied building forms and some flat-roofed garages. It considered this proposal problematic because it would take up almost all of the property's narrow frontage and sit close to the street, while nearby examples were generally less dominant or visually softened by landscaping, slope or fencing. The decision records a dispute over whether the Significant Landscape Overlay required a permit, but does not expressly decide that point.
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.
1,890 words · generated 29/09/2026
In Randall v Boroondara [2001] VCAT 1429, Terence and Hilary Randall asked the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal's Planning List to review the City of Boroondara's refusal of a permit for a dual carport at 23B Frater Street, Kew East. The decision identifies the review as an application under section 77 of the . The hearing took place on 14 June 2001 before Member J M Osborn, and the decision is dated 30 June 2001.
The site was in a Residential 1 Zone and subject to Schedule 2 of the Significant Landscape Overlay. The decision also records that a local variation to the Good Design Guide required a permit for construction or extension of one dwelling on a lot between 300 and 500 square metres. That requirement is mentioned in the judgment, but the substantive assessment concentrates on the carport's design and streetscape effect.
There was a disagreement about whether the Significant Landscape Overlay itself required a permit. The Responsible Authority said it did. Mr Randall argued that the works were exempt because they would be six metres or less above ground level. The decision reproduces the relevant overlay wording, which provides that a permit is not required for specified buildings or works in a residential zone if they are six metres or less above ground level. However, the Tribunal does not expressly decide that dispute. Its operative order disallows the review and directs that no permit be granted for application BOR 00/1041.
The proposal was a dual carport. The Tribunal considered the plans, photographs, written submissions, the site's existing parking arrangement and a site inspection. It noted that the land's slope was not shown in the plans, making it harder to assess the carport's likely streetscape effect. In paragraph 4, it observed that the setback from the street was almost entirely occupied by concrete parking and that four cars were parked in front of the dwellings during the inspection.
The Tribunal's core reasoning was a contextual design assessment, not a general rule that carports must have pitched roofs or must be set back by a particular distance. It considered the scale and position of the proposed structure alongside the layout of the site and the appearance of comparable structures in Frater Street.
The existing development had parking areas close to the footpath. The Tribunal described the review site as integrating poorly with the street: only a small garden area and a large tree separated the concrete parking area for 23B from similar parking at 23A (paragraph 4). That existing condition mattered to the assessment of whether adding a roofed structure would improve or worsen the street-facing appearance.
The applicant had submitted that the carport would help “defuse the bulk” of the dwellings. The Tribunal noted that no drawings showed how the carport would appear in relation to the existing buildings or the streetscape. The plans also failed to show the change in ground level (paragraph 2). Those omissions limited the material available to assess the claimed design benefit and the proposal's visual effect.
The Tribunal did not accept that the design issue could be reduced to roof form. It said a pitched roof was not necessarily the only response to neighbourhood character, given the range of building forms and materials in Frater Street (paragraph 6). Photographs showed some flat-roofed carports and garages, as well as some structures close to or on property boundaries. But the Tribunal considered their physical setting and proportion: most close-to-boundary structures were single carports or garages, while examples of double garages were set among fencing and landscaping. A garage on a corner site was in a heavily vegetated rear garden and occupied only a small part of a long side boundary (paragraph 6).
The decisive combination was the proposed carport's width and minimal setback. The Randall land had a 6.8-metre frontage. The carport would occupy almost all of it. Although the applicant offered to set it back one metre from the street, the Tribunal considered that the combined effect of width and proximity would still be inappropriate. Nearby structures close to frontages occupied a smaller proportion of their allotments or were less visually prominent because of slope or landscaping (paragraph 7).
The Tribunal therefore rejected the proposal as an inappropriate streetscape response, rather than because any one design feature was categorically unacceptable. It disallowed the application and directed that no permit issue.
The judgment does not announce a change in the law or formulate a new general legal test. It is a short, fact-specific VCAT decision applying the planning controls identified in the reasons to a particular proposal. The cited framework includes the Residential 1 Zone, Schedule 2 of the Significant Landscape Overlay, a local variation to the Good Design Guide, and the section 77 review process under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
The decision's practical contribution is its illustration of how this Tribunal assessed neighbourhood character and streetscape in this dispute. It looked beyond whether a structure of a particular type or roof form existed elsewhere in the street. It considered whether those comparisons were materially similar in frontage proportion, location, landscaping, fencing and topography (paragraphs 6-7).
There is no basis in the supplied judgment to say that the decision altered a pre-existing rule, bound later decision-makers, or established a universal setback or frontage-width standard. Its reasons do not state a numerical threshold for when a carport becomes too dominant. The one-metre setback was an offer made in the hearing, not a rule derived by the Tribunal.
The overlay permit-exemption argument also should not be treated as having been resolved by this decision. The Tribunal records the parties' competing positions and the wording of the provision, but the reasons do not give a distinct interpretation or finding on whether the exemption applied. The operative refusal does not, by itself, explain the Tribunal's resolution of that interpretive question.
At paragraph 2, the Tribunal recorded that no drawings showed how the carport would appear in relation to the existing buildings and streetscape, and that the plans did not show the change in ground level. In plain English, the visual material did not let the Tribunal readily assess the applicant's claim or the effects of the proposal on the sloping site. This formed part of the evidentiary context, rather than a separate stated rule about what plans must always contain.
At paragraph 4, the Tribunal said the site “does not integrate particularly well with the street.” It then described the narrow garden separation between parking areas and the concrete parking occupying almost all of the dwellings' street setback. This explains the baseline context against which the additional structure was considered.
At paragraph 6, the Tribunal stated that a pitched roof was not necessarily the only response to character, in light of the variety of building forms and materials in Frater Street. The practical point is that a design assessment need not mechanically require one architectural style. The Tribunal compared examples by considering their settings and scale.
At paragraph 7, the Tribunal focused on the carport's width and close position to the street. It said that the proposal would take up almost all of the 6.8-metre frontage. Nearby examples, while sometimes close to frontages, generally occupied less frontage or were visually moderated by slope, landscaping or fencing. The plain-English rationale is that a structure can be problematic because of the combined effect of its size and setting, even if other structures share one feature, such as a flat roof or close setback.
The decision is most relevant as an example where a planning assessment concerns a carport or garage on a narrow residential frontage and the central concern is its visual dominance from the street. Its reasoning may be pertinent where the proposed structure would occupy most of the frontage, sit near the footpath, and be accompanied by little landscaping or other visual screening.
It also illustrates the importance of comparing proposed works with nearby examples in context. A party pointing to other boundary-adjacent or flat-roofed structures should account for differences in size, frontage proportion, setting and topography. In this case, the Tribunal did not treat the mere existence of comparable structures as conclusive. It explained why the examples were less dominant: they occupied less frontage or were set among landscaping, fencing or a slope (paragraphs 6-7).
The judgment may also be useful where plans omit information relevant to visual assessment, such as changes in ground level or the relationship between a proposed structure and existing buildings. Here, the Tribunal said those omissions made assessment more difficult (paragraph 2).
These are descriptions of the fact pattern and reasoning in this decision, not a universal test. The decision does not establish that every carport close to a street or every double carport on a narrow lot is inappropriate. Nor does it provide a prescribed minimum setback, maximum frontage percentage, or mandatory roof form.
The supplied judgment contains no citations to later decisions and no information about subsequent judicial or tribunal treatment. On the material provided, it is not possible to say whether later courts or tribunals followed, distinguished, applied or criticised Randall v Boroondara.
The judgment itself cites no other cases. Its reasoning is presented through the Tribunal's assessment of the planning controls, site inspection, photographs and submissions. Any account of later treatment would require separate, reliable legal sources that are not included in the material provided. Accordingly, no claims about the decision's later precedential status can be grounded here.
Several matters remain unanswered by the judgment as supplied. First, although the Tribunal records the dispute over whether the Significant Landscape Overlay's six-metre exemption applied, it does not expressly resolve it. The reasons do not state whether the decision to refuse the permit rested on an assumption that a permit was required, on another planning control, or on a determination not set out in the text.
Second, the decision does not explain the detailed dimensions of the proposal beyond its relationship to the 6.8-metre frontage, nor does it set out a detailed assessment of alternatives. The Tribunal notes the applicant's offer of a one-metre setback but does not quantify how much additional setback, landscaping or reduction in width might have altered its assessment.
Third, the source gives limited detail about the broader neighbourhood character evidence. It refers to photographs of other carports and garages and to a Council urban designer's comments, but the urban designer was not present at the hearing. The Tribunal records its own inspection and assessment, but does not set out a comprehensive streetscape survey.
Finally, the decision does not establish a general legal test or identify how its reasoning should be applied in materially different settings. Questions such as the effect of different site slopes, greater landscaping, a narrower structure, or a substantially different streetscape are not decided. Those limits reinforce that the decision is best read as a fact-specific application of design and streetscape considerations to the proposal before Member Osborn.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
Residential 1 Zone, Neighbourhood Character, Design, Streetscape
The order of the Tribunal is that the application made under S. 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) in relation to refusal of a planning permit application is disallowed. The Tribunal directs that no permit be granted in relation to planning permit application number BOR 00/1041 for the construction of a dual carport on land known as 23 B Frater Street, Kew.
Mr, Scott Taylor, planning consultant, appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority.
Mr Terence Randall, permit applicant appeared on his own behalf.
This application for review was brought by Terence and Hilary Randall in relation to the City of Boroondara's refusal to grant a permit for a car port (for two cars) on land known as 23B Frater Street Kew East.
The land included in the review site is zoned Residential 1 and subject to Schedule 2 of the Significant Landscape Overlay. Copies of these Planning Scheme provisions are contained in the attachments to the submission on behalf of the Responsible Authority.
The submission on behalf of the Responsible Authority states that a planning permit is required under the provisions of the Significant Landscape Overlay. Mr Randall submitted that a permit is not required under the Significant Landscape Overlay as the proposed works would be less than 6 metres in height. Under Clause 3.0, Permit Requirement, the following is stated:
The requirement for a permit to construct a building or construct or carry out works includes a sign, fence and roadworks and associated street furniture.
A permit is not required to construct or carry out any of the following:
* Buildings or works in a residential_, Public Use or Public Park and Recreation zone if they are 6 metres or less above ground level_. (Tribunal underlining)
A planning permit is required for the construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot between 300 square metres and 500 square metres pursuant to a local variation to the Good Design Guide.
Details of the site and surroundings were included in the submission on behalf of the Responsible Authority and in the photographs provided by Mr Randall.
It is proposed to construct a double car port with the dimensions as set out in the plans accompanying the permit application.
1. The main issues in this application for review relate to design and streetscape within the broader context of neighbourhood character.
2. Mr Randall submitted that the proposed car port would help defuse the bulk of the dwellings on site. No drawings were provided, however, of how the proposed structure would appear in relation to the existing buildings on the review site and in relation to the streetscape. The plans submitted with the permit application do not indicate the change of level which occurs on the land including the proposed location of the car port and this adds to the difficulty in assessing the potential effect on the streetscape of the proposed construction.
3. The comments of Mr Singleton, Council's urban designer, were included in the delegate report follows:
The site supports a 1990's dual occupancy, which due to the slope of the land, as a very ordinary design response, has opted to provide at grade car parking for two (2) vehicles per unit on a concrete slab abutting the footpath. From a streetscape point of view this response is particularly intrusive and not in keeping with the general character of the street.
The proposed car port for Unit 2, the northern unit, has been designed to absolutely minimal proportions and appearance, presumably to minimise potential impacts on the streetscape of Frater Street. Unfortunately, from a streetscape point of view this response, which adopts a flat roofed structure with galvanised posts, hard against the street frontage, is considered to be a totally inappropriate response and would set an undesirable precedent in the street.
Due to various site conditions of the existing development, the provision of structures over the existing parking areas (to either unit) is strongly discouraged, now and in the future.
4. Mr Singleton was not present at the hearing. The Tribunal notes that, with the current layout of car parking, the review site does not integrate particularly well with the street. Only a small area of garden, which contains on large tree, separates the concrete car parking area for 23B from a similar parking area for the property at 23A. The setback of the dwellings from the frontage of the Randalls' property is almost completely occupied by a concrete car parking area. Four cars were parked in front of the dwellings during the Tribunal's site inspection.
5. In relation to the response to urban character, Mr Taylor's written submission to the hearing included the following:
"While the proposed flat roof style is consistent with the contemporary design of the dwelling, the style and materials is (sic) considered inappropriate given the predominance of timber dwellings and pitched roofs in the area"
6. The Tribunal is of the view that a pitched roof for a carport would not necessarily the only response to character in the context of the variety of building forms and materials in Frater Street. Photographs of other carports and garages in Frater Street were presented to the Tribunal. Some of these structures have flat roofs and a few are set close to or on the property boundary. Most of the vehicle accommodation that is on, or in very close proximity to, the property boundary consists of single car ports or garages. In the case of 2 and 48 Frater Street, double garages are set into a background of fencing and landscaping. One garage to a corner property was shown but this building is set in a heavily vegetated rear garden and occupies only a small proportion of a long, paling-fenced side boundary.
7. With respect to the proposed setback of the car port, the submission on behalf of the Responsible Authority was that there are no other dwellings in the street which include their garaging abutting the frontage. The site inspection and the photographs indicate that there are a few garages very close to the frontage in Frater Street. The Tribunal considers however that an inappropriate design response would result from the current review proposal due to the width of the car port, which would occupy almost all of the 6.8m frontage of the Randall's land (although 23 A and 23B Frater Street may have the appearance of one lot, there are two allotments with frontages of 8.44m and 6.8m to Frater Street). The width of the proposed carport combined with a minimal setback from the street (Mr Randall offered to set the car port back 1m from the street frontage). The other garages or car ports which are located close to the frontage occupy a lesser proportion of the frontage of the allotments, and most are set into a slope or landscaping and are therefore less dominant in the streetscape than is likely in the case of the review proposal. The Tribunal is of the view that the review proposal would not be appropriate in the streetscape.
8. For all the reasons given above the Tribunal will order that the application for review is disallowed. The Tribunal will direct that no permit issue in relation to permit application BOR 00/1041.
Randall
Boroondara [2001] VCAT 1429
The review application was disallowed. The Tribunal directed that no permit be granted for planning permit application BOR 00/1041 for construction of a dual carport at 23B Frater Street, Kew East.