//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2009] VCAT 2387
respondent. The responsible authority's decision was affirmed. A permit was directed to be issued for buildings and works in the Business 1 zone and a reduction in car parking, subject to the endorsed plans...
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Tribunal allowed the supermarket proposal to proceed with four on-site spaces rather than the 40 otherwise identified as required for its floor area. It considered the local parking situation, transport alternatives and the shop's likely scale and customers. The permit required the four spaces to be used by staff and six bicycle spaces to be provided. The Tribunal also permitted the associated building works, subject to conditions.
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.
1,965 words · generated 29/09/2026
Reddy and other applicants brought a review under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 concerning Yarra City Council’s decision to issue a planning permit for land at 306–310 Johnston Street, Abbotsford. Rasool Enterprise Pty Ltd was the permit applicant and respondent. The proposal involved a convenience supermarket and works to adapt an existing building. The site was in a Business 1 zone and an Environmental Audit Overlay.
The supermarket was proposed to have 510 square metres of retail floor area. The decision records that Clause 52.06 required 40 on-site car spaces for that area, while the plans showed four spaces at the rear, arranged in two tandem pairs. The central dispute was whether the shortfall could be accepted through a reduction in the parking requirement. The Member recorded that the objectors did not dispute the minor building works, so parking was the only disputed issue.
The Tribunal visited the site and surrounding area on 27 October 2009 and held a hearing on 30 October. The permit applicant called a traffic engineer, Michael O’Brien, whose evidence included traffic surveys. On 4 November 2009, Member Alison Glynn affirmed the responsible authority’s decision and directed that a permit issue. The order allowed buildings and works in the Business 1 zone and a reduction in car parking, subject to the conditions in Appendix A.
The order did not simply approve the plans without qualification. It required amended plans, including provision for six bicycle spaces at the site frontage, details of changes to rear gates and fencing, and details of alterations at the rear of the building arising from demolition of a brick outbuilding. It also required the four car spaces to be line-marked and available exclusively to staff.
The Tribunal’s starting point was the stated purpose of Clause 52.06: “To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the activities on the land and the nature of the locality.” The Member treated the required parking number as a matter to assess in its local context, rather than deciding the issue solely by comparing 40 required spaces with four proposed spaces.
The locality mattered. The Member described the site as being in an inner Melbourne area where retailing and parking expectations differ from those in suburban areas. The judgment noted a frequent bus service beside the site, a nearby railway line, further public transport options on Hoddle Street, and extensive pedestrian and cycle paths. These features informed the assessment of how customers might reach the shop.
Parking availability was also assessed in practical terms. The Member accepted the traffic surveys as showing sufficient short-term parking in the area. The decision acknowledged that some spaces would be unavailable during clearway periods and when a football match was occurring at Victoria Park. However, the Member accepted the traffic engineer’s evidence that local residents would be aware of these conditions and could shop accordingly, and considered that restrictions applied only for short periods while most on-street spaces were available for most of the day.
The Member also considered how the shop’s nature could affect parking demand. The decision described it as relatively small and not likely to generate many large-scale shopping trips where immediate access to a vehicle and shopping trolley would be important. The Member considered that a high proportion of users might walk or cycle. The judgment also rejected the suggestion that customers would not combine trips, referring to the activity-centre planning idea that facilities can be used as part of a shared trip.
A further part of the calculation was the previous use. The Member accepted Council’s calculation that three spaces associated with the previous use could be treated as waived. On that basis, the decision said demand for the proposed use could be treated as 33 spaces. The judgment does not set out a broader rule for calculating such credits; it records the calculation accepted in this application.
The four proposed spaces were not treated as a substitute for short-term public parking. The Member was concerned that these spaces be available for staff on a long-term basis, thereby maintaining as much on-street parking as possible for short-term visitors and shoppers, as well as residents and visitors to nearby dwellings. That concern was reflected in the permit condition requiring exclusive staff use.
This decision does not purport to change the law or establish a new general rule about parking reductions. It applies the planning scheme provisions identified in the judgment to a particular permit application. The material legal framework described in the decision was that Clause 52.06 set a parking requirement and provided decision guidelines for considering a reduction, while Clause 324.01-2 required a permit for buildings and works in the Business 1 zone.
The judgment’s contribution, as reflected in its reasoning, is an example of how those guidelines were applied to an inner-urban retail proposal. The Member considered local parking supply and restrictions, available transport alternatives, likely user behaviour, the nature and scale of the proposed shop, and a previous-use parking credit. Those factors are presented as the basis for deciding this application, not as a closed or exhaustive test for every proposal.
The order also illustrates the use of permit conditions to address practical issues arising from the proposal. It required six bicycle spaces, amended plans about the rear access and building alterations, and staff-only use of the four car spaces. These conditions formed part of the permit granted; the judgment does not state that each condition is mandatory in other cases.
No competing legal decisions are discussed in the supplied judgment. Accordingly, it does not provide a before-and-after account of a line of precedent, nor does it identify a prior rule that it overruled or qualified. The legal sources specifically named in the text are the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme.
The stated purpose of Clause 52.06 was “to ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the activities on the land and the nature of the locality.” In plain English, the Tribunal assessed parking by looking at both what the shop would do and where it would operate. The number required by the scheme was important, but the judgment treated the reduction question as requiring consideration of the local setting as well.
The Member said that traffic surveys showed “sufficient short term parking available in the area.” That finding was qualified by recognition of clearways and football-match conditions. In plain English, the Tribunal did not find that every nearby space was always available. It accepted that the available supply was sufficient overall for this proposal, considering the duration and predictability of restrictions.
The Member said the site was “well serviced by public transport” and noted the Council’s condition for cycle parking at the front of the site. In plain English, access by means other than a private car was part of the parking assessment, and bicycle facilities were secured through the permit condition.
The Member recorded that the four on-site spaces “should be made available for staff as long term spaces.” This was not merely descriptive. Appendix A made staff-only use an express permit condition. In plain English, the approval depended on keeping those spaces for staff rather than treating them as short-term customer spaces.
Finally, the Member accepted a previous-use allocation of three spaces and said that “the demand for this use can be deemed to be 33 spaces.” In plain English, the Tribunal did not assess the proposal as though the full 40-space requirement remained after considering that accepted credit. The judgment gives no wider explanation of the legal method for such credits.
The decision is most directly relevant as an example where a permit applicant seeks to reduce a scheme parking requirement for a relatively small retail use in an inner-urban activity area. The particular facts included 510 square metres of retail floor area, four proposed spaces at the rear, local short-term parking surveys, nearby public transport, pedestrian and cycle connections, and a previous-use credit accepted by the Tribunal.
The reasoning may be informative where the parking assessment turns on how the nature of the business and the locality relate to likely travel and parking patterns. Here, the Member considered whether users would walk or cycle, whether some customers would combine trips, whether the shop would generate large-scale shopping trips, and whether the available on-street parking was generally usable despite time-specific restrictions.
The conditions matter to the factual scope of the decision. The four spaces were to be staff-only, and the permit required six bicycle spaces. A proposal with customer parking in those spaces, different parking conditions, a different retail scale, or materially different transport access would not share all the facts on which the Member relied. The judgment does not establish that a particular percentage reduction should be allowed for every shop or every inner-city site.
The decision also concerned an application in a Business 1 zone and identified no relevant parking precinct plan for the area. It should not be read as deciding how a precinct plan, different planning controls, or different permit provisions would affect another application. Those matters were not part of the stated factual basis for this outcome.
The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later cases, and the material provided does not identify any subsequent judicial or tribunal treatment of Reddy & Ors v Yarra CC. It would therefore be unsupported to say that later courts followed, distinguished, approved or criticised it.
The judgment itself does not cite other judgments as authorities. Its reasoning is framed around the wording and decision guidelines of Clause 52.06 and the evidence before the Tribunal. Any assessment of its later precedential treatment would require sources beyond the judgment supplied here.
For research purposes, the decision can be described on this record as a fact-specific VCAT application of parking-reduction criteria, rather than as a judgment whose later reception is established by the text. That description does not determine its current legal weight or how a later decision might treat it.
Several matters are not resolved by the judgment. It does not explain the detailed method used to calculate or recognise the three-space credit associated with the previous use. The decision records that the Member accepted Council’s calculation, but does not set out the underlying calculation or discuss its legal basis in detail.
The judgment also does not give numerical survey results or specify the number of available spaces at different times. It records the Member’s acceptance of the traffic surveys and summarises the conclusion, but the supplied text does not provide the data needed to independently examine the survey methodology or quantify parking occupancy.
The decision refers to shared trips and activity-centre planning, but does not quantify how many customers were expected to combine trips or how much that behaviour affected the parking demand assessment. Similarly, it notes that a small shop would not generate many large-scale shopping trips, without providing a numerical forecast of customer numbers or vehicle arrivals.
Finally, the order includes specific conditions about bicycle parking, rear access, staff parking, construction hours and permit expiry. The judgment does not discuss how those conditions might be monitored or enforced, nor does it set out how a different proposed condition would affect the assessment. Those are limits of what can be extracted from this decision, not conclusions about the operation of other permits.
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.
Yarra Planning Scheme, Section 82 to Planning and Environment Act, reduction in car parking, buildings and works, business 1 zone.
Reddy & Ors v Yarra CC [2009] VCAT 2387
Mr Con Tsourounakis, Town Planner. He called the following witness:
Reduction in car parking for use of a shop (supermarket) and buildings and works to existing building to accommodate a shop.
Section 82 Planning and Environment Act 1987
Existing showroom with brick building and windows and door to face Johnston Street. Rear access via Little Turner Street to concrete paved area used for four staff car spaces and a rear loading area via a roller shutter.
I visited the site and surrounds on 27 October, 2009
To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the activities on the land and the nature of the locality[1]
Monday to Friday 7:00am to 6:00pm; (including public holidays)
No work is to be carried out on Sundays. All site operations must comply with the relevant Environment Protection Authority guidelines on construction and demolition noise.
Reddy & Ors
Yarra CC [2009] VCAT 2387
The responsible authority's decision was affirmed. A permit was directed to be issued for buildings and works in the Business 1 zone and a reduction in car parking, subject to the endorsed plans and Appendix A conditions. Those conditions included six bicycle spaces, details of rear gates and fencing and the rear building alterations, staff-only use of the four car spaces, construction-hour limits, and permit-expiry provisions.