Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2015-07-16|Before: Mr J, Dr P, For J

For the reasons explained above, we have concluded that the development will not represent an acceptable planning outcome. We acknowledge the Applicant's request at the hearing for the opportunity to prepare amended plans, should our view be that the development, as proposed, is not acceptable. We have considered this request. Having regard to the nature and number of the modifications which are likely to be required to address the matters identified in our reasons, we consider that this is best done in the form of a new planning application.
The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. No permit is to issue.

[1] We have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed by parties that did not appear. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[5] Bensons Property Management Group v Boroondara CC [2011] VCAT 533 at paragraph 16.

[6] Examples include FKP Lifestyle Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC & Ors (Red Dot) [2008] VCAT 162; B Projects Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC (Correction) [2013] VCAT 297; CSTP Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC & Ors [2009] VCAT 1078; ML Design v Boroondara CC [2006] VCAT 613; Bensons Property Management Group v Boroondara CC [2011] VCAT 533.

[7] ML Design v Boroondara CC [2006] VCAT 613.

[8] Carlos Constructions Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2004] VCAT 1752at paragraph 40 cited with approval in FKP Lifestyle Pty Ltd.

[9] FKP Lifestyle Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC & Ors (Red Dot) [2008] VCAT 162

[10] Department of Sustainability and Environment (2005). The Activity Centre Design Guidelines are a policy reference at Clause 15.01-2.

[12] Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004)

[13] Dr Greenup's evidence explains that the daylight factor metric is the ratio between the amount of daylight available at a selected location to that available at an unobstructed location, under an overcast sky condition. The example given is: at a position with a 1% daylight factor, where the external unobstructed overcast sky provides 10,000 lux, that position receives 1% x10,000 lux = 100 lux of daylight illumination.

[14] Department of Planning and Community Development April 2013

SPEC Property Developments Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2015] VCAT 1068 (16 July 2015)

Pamato Corporation Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2014] VCAT 1278

FKP Lifestyle Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC & Ors (Red Dot) [2008] VCAT 162

SPEC Property Developments Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2015] VCAT 1068

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)

SPEC Property Developments Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2015] VCAT 1068 (16 July 2015)