//
[2015] VCAT 1890
General information, not legal advice.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2015-11-30
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] Melbourne Water indicated in correspondence dated13 May 2015 that they had no objection to the grant of a permit subject to the inclusion of specified conditions.
[2] We have considered the submissions and evidence of the parties that appeared, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.
[3] Pursuant to Cl. 66(1) of Sch. 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, if the Tribunal is constituted without a judicial member or a member who is an Australian lawyer, a
question of law arising in the proceeding may be decided by the presiding member unless the parties that are present at the hearing of the proceeding disagree; or in accordance with the opinion of a judicial member or a member who is an Australian lawyer nominated by the President. In this proceeding the Tribunal is not constituted by either a judicial or legal member.
[5] Including at Clauses 9, 11.01-2, 11.02-1, 11.04-2, 11.04-1, 16.01, 18.01-1, 21.03, 21.04, 21.05, 21.06 and 34.01.
[6] Including at 11.04-4, 15.01 (that also requires consideration of the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004), 21.05, 21.06-7, 22.06 and 34.01-8.
[7] 34-38 Albert Road and 42-50 Albert Road.
[8] The proposal rejected in Lintime included a pedestrian arcade from Albert Road connecting to the review site.
[10] Noting that one of the reasons the Panel considered a discretionary 60 metre rather than a mandatory 45 metre height was appropriate for sub precinct 2 was that Kings Way forms a barrier and hard edge to the precinct and the lower height is not necessary to transition to the low scale residential heritage area of South Melbourne (west of Kings Way).
[11] As referred to in the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004) that are required to be considered pursuant to Clauses 11.01-2 and 15.01-2.
[12] The first six levels of the building on 34-38 Albert Road contain car parking. This separation distance is from the dwellings contained in the levels above the car park.
[13]As referred to in the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004).
[14] Based on the evidence of Ms Dunstan.
[15] At Clauses 11.01-2, 18.02-1 and 21.03.
Roundbay Pty Ltd
Port Phillip CC [2015] VCAT 1890
To the east of the site are a number of commercial and residential properties facing Albert Road separated from the review site by a right of way that terminates at the north eastern corner of the review site. The adjoining developments vary in height from five to 28 levels and take vehicle access from the right of way. A proposal for a 19 storey building at 28-32 Albert Road immediately to the rear of the review site has recently been rejected by the Tribunal in Lintime Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2015] VCAT 1244.