© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2013] VCAT 1646
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2013-09-23
Mr Basil J
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] Involving the demolition of the 1960's three storey addition and related structures. 8 apartments are proposed with 32 car parking spaces.
[2] Using terminology referenced in the expert reports in this proceeding.
[4] Unless the existing building exceeds 12 metres, which is not the case here.
[5] For example, in another context, in DDO7 of the Bayside Planning Scheme, architectural services are listed to expressly include domes, towers and masts.
[6] Via an amalgam and derivation of the terms "architecture" and "feature".
[7] The responsible authority confirmed that the shade canopy was in the nature of a horizontal projection that would not rise above 12 metres in height.
[9] I concur with the observation made by Mr Cook that the decoration or otherwise of a [balustrade] does not change its function as a required element of the building.
[10] He considered that it was a key part of the building composition, and an intrinsic aspect of the modelling of a collection of abstract forms on the rooftop.
[12] Referred to by Ms Penn as giving the impression of stacked and folded metal planes.
[13] It would be similar to a lifting device such as a small crane installed within a building, or a hoist (electrical or otherwise), even though a lift is most commonly be used to transport people from floor to floor.
[14] Treating the issue of functionality somewhat differently when referring to a "building service" as opposed to an "architectural feature".
[15] I was informed by the permit holder that this permission was still current and was provided with a copy of the endorsed plans.
[16] This would inherently include a building of the scale and character of the existing three storey motel.
[17] It is not a distinctive or characteristic part of the building and has been designed with a minimal profile.
[18] With an approximate spacing of 6 metres from window to window across the two sites.
[19] At this stage one owner seems to have indicated a willingness to take up this offer.
[20] Assuming that it was carried out with a relatively even power balance and with the benefit of an informed decision making process.
[21] I also note that a heritage assessment has been prepared by Mr Bryce Raworth in connection with the application and that both the building and streetscape are of heritage significance.
SGRC Pty Ltd
Melbourne CC [2013] VCAT 1646