//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2005] VCAT 2881
appellant. Allowed. The decision of the Responsible Authority was set aside and a permit was granted for a tennis court including vegetation removal and associated earthworks, subject to nine conditions...
A man wanted to build a tennis court in his backyard in Portsea, but the local council refused permission because it involved too much digging and filling on a steep slope, would damage native plants, and didn't follow the tennis court building rules. He appealed to VCAT. During the hearing, he showed new plans that made the court smaller, used different walls, and reduced the amount of earthworks. The Tribunal visited the site and decided the new plans were acceptable. The trees that needed to be removed were mostly in poor condition or small and easily replaced. The revised plans also fixed the problem with fill being too high near the boundary. The Tribunal overturned the council's decision and approved the tennis court, but with strict conditions about landscaping, drainage, and protecting remaining trees.
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.
The application fails to demonstrate how it will meet the considerations, objectives and performance requirements of the Tennis Court Code of Practice.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
17 I have carried out an inspection to assist me in coming to a decision in this matter.
18 I consider that the excavation and fill as set out in the revised plans is satisfactory having regard to the design and Development Overlay. The general requirements set out are not met in full but I consider that it is appropriate to grant a permit to vary those general requirements. Opportunity has been taken in the revised plans to minimise the impact of the proposal.
19 The reduction in the overall dimensions of the court area would reduce the impact on vegetation and allow more room for landscaping. It was the evidence of Mr Galbraith, the consultant arborist called as an expert witness for the applicant for review/permit applicant with respect to the earlier proposal, that the great majority of the trees to be removed were in poor condition or were small, young and readily replaceable. I accept that evidence and I consider that it applies more so to the proposal as set out in the revised plans.
20 I note that in the revised plans that fill greater than one metre within one metre of the east boundary has been deleted.
21 I have come to the conclusion that a permit should be granted for the proposal, in accordance with the revised plans and subject to conditions.
22 For the above reasons this application is allowed subject to conditions. It is appropriate for a permit to be granted, and I will so order.
Scoble
Mornington Peninsula SC [2005] VCAT 2881
Allowed. The decision of the Responsible Authority was set aside and a permit was granted for a tennis court including vegetation removal and associated earthworks, subject to nine conditions including amended plans, landscaping requirements, drainage and WSUD requirements, vegetation protection, and expiry provisions.