appellant. The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority in both proceedings and directed that permits be issued for: (a) use and development of a packing shed and cool store on 410 Old...
Key principles
The Tribunal was satisfied that the proposed use and development of a cool store and packing shed were appropriate to the farming use of the land and area, given the purpose of...
The Tribunal held that, on balance of relevant state and local policies, the proposed title re-alignment was appropriate despite local policy (clause 21.07-3) favouring...
A permit condition requiring a Section 173 agreement to restrict the existing warehouse (a now non-conforming use) to the original Lot 1 and to record acknowledgement of the...
Issues before the court
Whether a permit should be granted for the use and development of a cool store and packing shed on Lot 1 where an existing warehouse is a now...
Whether the proposed title re-alignment (subdivision/lot boundary re-alignment) was acceptable given local policy (clause 21.07-3) that title...
Whether it was appropriate to manage the existing warehouse non-conforming use by registering a Section 173 agreement restricting the warehouse use...
Plain English Summary
VCAT set aside Greater Shepparton City Council's decision and granted two permits: one to realign lot boundaries so Lot 1 increases in area, and another to use and develop Lot 1 for a packing shed and cool store. The Tribunal found the development fits the Farming Zone's purpose and that, on balance, policy support for agricultural infrastructure justified the re-alignment. To manage an existing warehouse that became a non-conforming use after rezoning, the Tribunal required a registered Section 173 agreement restricting that warehouse use to the original part of Lot 1, along with standard engineering, drainage, noise and operational 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.
Deep Dive
1,798 words · generated 25/08/2026
What happened
This VCAT decision concerns two related permit applications affecting land at 410–440 Old Dookie Road, Shepparton East (VCAT refs P1810/2007 and P98/2009). The site comprised two lots: Lot 1 (410 Old Dookie Road) of 1.212 hectares containing an existing warehouse permitted under the earlier Rural zoning, and Lot 2 (440 Old Dookie Road) of 7.949 hectares used as an orchard (Background, paras 1.1–1.2). The applicants sought:
Cited legislation
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
Permit 2007-72: a title re-alignment to transfer 0.949 ha from Lot 2 to Lot 1, increasing Lot 1 to 2.138 ha and reducing Lot 2 to 7 ha (Background, para 1.3); and
Permit 2007-391: use and development of the enlarged Lot 1 for a packing shed and cool store, to serve the applicants' orchards and potentially other local producers (Background, para 1.4).
Because the site had been rezoned from Rural to Farming Zone, the existing warehouse on Lot 1, previously permitted, became a non-conforming use. The Responsible Authority (Greater Shepparton City Council) initially refused the applications; at the VCAT hearing Council’s representative indicated that Council had come to support both permits provided certain conditions were accepted, notably conditions to restrict the warehouse non-conforming use to the original Lot 1 (Basis of Decision, paras 1–3).
Member Alison Glynn heard the matter on 16 July 2009 and, in an oral decision dated 28 July 2009, set aside the Responsible Authority’s decision and directed that permits be issued for both the development (packing shed and cool store) and the title re-alignment, subject to the conditions set out in Appendices A and B (Order). Key permit conditions included:
submission and endorsement of detailed plans and drainage works, with specified maximum stormwater discharge rates and Goulburn-Murray Water requirements (Appendix A, conditions 1 and 7);
a requirement that the owner enter into a Section 173 agreement, to be registered on title under s181, restricting the warehouse use to the portion of Lot 1 formerly in PS306426K and acknowledging the limits of the non-conforming use under s6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Appendix A, condition 4; Appendix B, condition 2);
construction management, noise compliance, vehicle access and parking, septic system approval, and standard permit expiry periods (Appendix A and B).
The Tribunal expressly relied on planning-scheme purposes and policies and on the ability to control the non-conforming warehouse through a registered s173 agreement when deciding permits could be issued (Basis of Decision paras 4.1–4.3; Appendices).
Why the court decided this way
Three connected reasons underpin the Tribunal’s decision:
Consistency with the Farming Zone purpose and support for agricultural infrastructure: The Tribunal found the packing shed and cool store to be appropriate to the farming use of the land and the locality, noting the need for support facilities for nearby orchards (Basis of Decision para 4.1). That factual and planning assessment was decisive for the development permit.
Balancing competing policy objectives in favour of agricultural support: The Tribunal acknowledged local policy (clause 21.07-3) imposes a presumption that title re-alignment be confined to facilitating farm consolidation and retaining minimum lot sizes. Nevertheless, the Member found that, when balancing numerous other state and local policies that encourage infrastructure for the agricultural industry, the title re-alignment was acceptable (Basis of Decision paras 4.2–4.3). The Tribunal explicitly recorded that although 0.9 ha would be removed from primary agricultural production, the land would remain in secondary agricultural production as a packing and cooling facility (Basis of Decision para 4.3).
Management of the non-conforming warehouse by s173 agreement: A central concern was that the existing warehouse, lawful when approved under the previous Rural zoning, had become a non-conforming use after rezoning. The Tribunal required a s173 agreement, to be registered on title, acknowledging the warehouse’s non-conforming status and restricting the warehouse activities to the original portion of Lot 1 (Appendix A condition 4; Appendix B condition 2). This condition addressed potential adverse effects from extending the non-conforming warehouse use to the newly consolidated Lot 1 area, making the grants acceptable.
Procedurally, the Council’s changed position at hearing (supporting the permit subject to conditions) and the agreement of the applicant to proposed conditions reduced the scope of objection and supported the Tribunal’s view that the permits could be appropriately conditioned (Basis of Decision paras 1–3).
Before and after state of the law
This decision is primarily an application of planning scheme principles and statutory mechanisms rather than a doctrinal innovation. The Tribunal applied well-established tools and concepts:
the need to assess development against zone purposes and planning policies (here the Farming Zone and clause 21.07 local policy),
the recognition of existing non-conforming uses and the statutory framework governing their status and limits (the decision references the need to acknowledge "the right to use for a warehouse is both protected and limited by the requirements of section 6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987", Appendices A and B), and
the practical use of Section 173 agreements registered under Section 181 as a planning control mechanism to manage and limit uses on title as part of permit conditions.
After this decision, the practical takeaway is that VCAT will consider infrastructure-supporting uses in farming areas favourably where the use aligns with zone objectives and where the Tribunal can impose robust, title‑registered restrictions to manage legacy non-conforming uses. The decision illustrates the Tribunal balancing local policy constraints (clause 21.07-3) with broader planning objectives promoting agricultural infrastructure (Basis of Decision paras 4.2–4.3). The decision does not purport to change legal doctrine; it applies existing statutory and planning-scheme mechanisms to the facts.
Key passages with plain-English translation
Quoted text: "The proposed use and development of a cool store and packing shed were appropriate to the farming use of the land and area given the purpose of the zone and the need to provide support facilities for orchards in the area." (Basis of Decision para 4.1)
Plain English: The Tribunal decided the packing and cooling facility fits what the Farming Zone is for, and those facilities are the kind of things orchards nearby need.
Quoted text: "I am satisfied that on balance of the various local and state policies affecting the site the title re-alignment is appropriate." (Basis of Decision para 4.2)
Plain English: Even though a local rule usually limits changing boundaries unless it helps farm consolidation and keeps minimum lot sizes, when you balance that rule against other policies that support farm infrastructure, changing the boundary here is acceptable.
Quoted text (permit condition): "The owner must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority, pursuant to Section 173 ... The agreement must provide that: The land used as a warehouse identified as that part of the site formally within Lot 1 on PS306426K is the only land permitted to be used as a warehouse ..."
Plain English: The owner must sign a covenant registered on the title to record that only the original part of Lot 1 is allowed to be used as a warehouse; this keeps the non-conforming warehouse use confined to where it was originally permitted.
Quoted text: "The title realignment will remove 0.9 Ha from primary agricultural production, but retain the land in secondary agricultural production through use for packing and cooling of produce." (Basis of Decision para 4.3)
Plain English: While nearly a hectare of land would no longer be used to grow crops, it would still be used for agriculture-related processing, which is considered an acceptable trade-off.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
The practical fact pattern where this decision is most directly on point includes:
land in a Farming Zone that contains both primary production (orchards) and an existing building/use that became non-conforming after rezoning (Background paras 1.1–1.2);
an applicant seeking to increase the size of the lot containing the non-conforming use by re-aligning titles, with the enlarged lot to be used for a packing shed/cool store serving nearby orchards (Background para 1.3–1.4);
local policy that discourages arbitrary title re-alignment (clause 21.07-3) but other state/local policies encourage providing infrastructure for agriculture (Basis of Decision paras 4.2–4.3);
the existence of viable statutory mechanisms to register a title covenant (s173) restricting where a non-conforming use may operate, and practical engineering/operational conditions to manage external effects (Appendices).
Where those elements are present, VCAT’s approach in this decision suggests it will weigh policy support for agricultural infrastructure and require enforceable title-based restrictions to manage non-conforming uses, potentially granting permits despite local policy preferences against re-alignment.
How later courts have treated it
The judgment itself does not cite subsequent cases (it is a single VCAT decision). The decision is administrative and fact specific; it primarily demonstrates VCAT's willingness to use s173 agreements and conditions to manage non-conforming uses and to balance competing planning policies. Any later treatment by higher courts or later VCAT panels would need to be established by checking subsequent authorities; the decision as given does not record any binding precedent beyond its persuasive weight for comparable fact patterns.
Still-open questions
From the reasoning and conditions in this decision, points that might require further legal exploration in future cases include:
The precise weight to be given to a local policy expressly discouraging title re-alignment (clause 21.07-3) when weighed against other state and local policies promoting agricultural infrastructure. This decision finds a balance in favour of infrastructure on its facts (Basis of Decision paras 4.2–4.3), but the threshold for a different outcome in other fact patterns is not articulated in detail.
The extent to which a s173 agreement restricting a non-conforming use to a sub-area of a title is sufficient to manage risks of intensification or functional expansion of that use following a re-alignment. The Tribunal in this case accepted such an agreement plus operational conditions (Appendices), but future disputes may test enforcement and interpretation of such agreements.
How strictly a Tribunal or Responsible Authority must apply minimum lot-size considerations where clause 21.07-3 is engaged, particularly where the "balance lot" is reduced to near but not below minimum sizes, or where cumulative re-alignments may affect long-term agricultural viability.
The evidentiary standard for concluding that a re-alignment which removes land from 'primary agricultural production' nevertheless retains sufficient 'secondary agricultural production' character to satisfy planning objectives; this decision rests on the particular facts (Basis of Decision para 4.3).
As a VCAT decision, these questions remain fact-sensitive and invite future adjudication to clarify boundaries.
Disclaimer: This is a grounded analysis of the VCAT decision Stetco Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Shepparton CC [2009] VCAT 1457 based only on the judgment text you provided. It is legal information, not legal advice. I can make mistakes. Before you act on, rely on, or use any part of this analysis or any draft related to it, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.
Judgment (47 paragraphs)
[1]
Stetco Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Shepparton CC [2009] VCAT 1457 (28 July 2009)
In both proceedings P1810/2007 and P98/2009, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
In permit application 2007 391 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 410 - 440 Old Dookie Road, Shepparton East in accordance with the endorsed plans on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
Use and development of a packing shed and cool store
[6]
In permit application 2007 72, a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 410 - 440 Old Dookie Road, Shepparton East in accordance with the endorsed plans on the conditions set out in Appendix B. The permit allows:
Re-alignment of title boundaries.
[7]
For Stetco Nominees Pty Ltd and Kuriakov Orchards Pty Ltd
[8]
Mr John Cicero, Solicitor of Best Hooper Solicitors.
[9]
Ms Annette Jones, Solicitor of Russell Kennedy Solicitors
[10]
At the conclusion of the hearing, I gave an oral decision to:
Grant a permit to realign the property boundary between 410 and 440 Old Dookie Road Shepparton East.
Grant a permit to use and develop 410 Old Dookie Road, for a cool store and packing shed with associated car parking.
[11]
This summary contains the reasons for that decision.
[12]
I do not detail the proposal, the site context and planning scheme provisions as these are identified in the various documents contained on the Tribunal file. Important context to the decision however is the following:
[13]
410 Old Dookie Road, Lot 1 of the site, comprises an existing area of 1.212 Ha and incorporates an existing warehouse. This warehouse was permitted in accordance with the provisions of the planning scheme at the time, but is now a prohibited use with the change in zoning of the site from Rural to Farming zone.
2. 440 Old Dookie Road, Lot 2 of the site, comprises an existing area of 7.949 Ha and is used as an orchard.
[14]
The proposed title re-alignment is to increase the size of lot 1 by 0.949 Ha to 2.138 Ha, and thereby reducing the size of Lot 2 to 7 Hectares.
[15]
The additional area forming Lot 1 is then proposed to be used as a packing shed and cool store for nearby orchards owned by the permit applicant and potentially for other farmers in the area.
[16]
At the commencement of the hearing, the Council representative, Ms Jones submitted that with the submission of plans regarding the cool store and discussion of draft conditions regarding this store use including the association of the use with the subdivision that Council now supported both planning permit applications. She indicated that provided the permit applicant agreed to conditions to restrict the existing warehouse use to the existing site boundaries of this non conforming use, Council supported the additional land to be used as a cool store and packaging plant.
Mr Cicero then advised that the permit applicant agreed to the draft conditions tabled by Council prior to the hearing subject to a few minor alterations to wording.
Mr Mildern submitted that whilst his client still had some concerns about the proposal accepted that the scope of these concerns had been minimised through proposed conditions and was prepared to accept approval of the development and subdivision subject to proposed conditions tabled by Council.
I ruled that I was satisfied a permit could issue based on the following matters:
[17]
The proposed use and development of a cool store and packing shed were appropriate to the farming use of the land and area given the purpose of the zone and the need to provide support facilities for orchards in the area.
2. I am satisfied that on balance of the various local and state policies affecting the site the title re-alignment is appropriate. I am conscious that specific local policy (clause 21.07 - 3) states title re-alignment should only be permitted to facilitate farm consolidation so long as the balance lot is at least the minimum lot size. However, numerous other state and local policy is to direct support for infrastructure for agricultural industry.
[18]
The title realignment will remove 0.9 Ha from primary agricultural production, but retain the land in secondary agricultural production through use for packing and cooling of produce.
[19]
The proposed restriction through permit condition regarding the existing use of warehouse would ensure this existing use can be appropriately managed.
[20]
Mr Mildern indicated his client was concerned at costs he had incurred from previous adjournments to the hearing. During a break in proceedings I understand an agreement was reached between Mr Mildern and the permit applicant in relation to this matter.
I make no order or directions regarding costs.
[21]
Having regard to the above I will direct that permits issue subject to conditions as detailed in Appendix A and B.
[22]
Before the development starts, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and a minimum of three (3) copies must be provided:
Detailed construction plans for drainage works including Water Sensitive Urban Design features and must be generally in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan drawn by Coomes Consulting (Drawing No. 131637R01);
A splay in the south eastern corner of the land;
Prior to the occupation of the shed and cool store all road, drainage and landscaping works must be constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans.
The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
The owner must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority, pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 within six (6) months of the date of this permit. This agreement must be registered on the title to the land pursuant to Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The owner must pay the reasonable costs of the preparation, execution and registration of the section 173 agreement. The agreement must provide that:
[23]
The land used as a warehouse identified as that part of the site formally within Lot 1 on PS306426K is the only land permitted to be used as a warehouse as defined under the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme;
2. Acknowledge that the use of that part of the land on Lot 1 on PS306426K as a warehouse is a non-conforming use and that the right to use for a warehouse is both protected and limited by the requirements of Section 6 (3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
[24]
Vehicle access to the warehouse shall only be via Lot 1 on PS306426K. Goods relating to the warehouse will only be stored on Lot 1 on PS306426K;
[25]
A surveyed site plan identifying that part of the site to which the "warehouse" non-conforming use right is restricted to is included as an annexure to the agreement;
2. The definition of a warehouse as it currently appears in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme is included within the agreement.
[26]
The said agreement is to be prepared by the Council. The Council will undertake to have the agreement prepared upon written notification from the applicant. All costs associated with the preparation and registration of the agreement shall be borne by the applicant. All fees associated with the documentation must be fully paid prior to execution and registration of the document by Council.
[27]
The building shall not be occupied until a plan of consolidation has been lodged with the titles office .
Before the development starts, a construction management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The plan must detail measures to be employed for the effective management of matters including, mud on roads, dust generation and erosion and sediment control on the land, during the construction phase. When approved the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The construction management plan must provide contact details of the site manager.
The construction management plan must be complied with at all times during the construction phase.
Noise levels emanating from the land must comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority's Information Bulletin No. N3/89 Interim Guidelines for the Control of Noise in Country Victoria.
Prior to occupation of the shed and cool store, all car parking spaces and accessways must be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the land in a forward direction.
The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles in association with the use on the land, must only be carried out on the land within the designated loading bay(s) and must not disrupt the circulation and parking of vehicles on the land.
Before the development starts, a drainage plan with computations prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and a minimum of three (3) copies must be provided. The plans must be in accordance with council's Infrastructure Design Manual and include:
[28]
how the land will be drained;
2. underground pipe drains conveying stormwater to the legal point of discharge;
[29]
measures to enhance stormwater discharge quality from the site and protect downstream waterways in accordance with Goulburn-Murray Water's policy 'Acceptance pf Urban and Industrial Water into Goulburn-Murray Water Drains';
[30]
a maximum discharge rate from the site of 1.2l/sec/ha;
2. documentation demonstrating approval from the relevant authority for the legal point of discharge; and
Before the building is occupied all drainage works required by the drainage plan must completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Prior to the use commencing, vehicle crossings providing access to the land must be constructed at a location and of dimensions and standard to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and constructed at the owner's expense.
[31]
The vehicle crossing must be no less than 4.9 metres in length and include a pipe of a diameter suitable to accommodate the actual volume/flow (having a minimum diameter of (375) mm). Culverts located in the clear zone shall be installed with trafficable end walls (refer VicRoads standard drawing SD 1991). The final location of the crossing is to be approved by the responsible authority via a 'Works within the Roads Reserve' (Road Opening)' permit.
[32]
All bridges and crossings must be designed and constructed to carry a vehicle weighing a minimum of 15 tonnes and be a minimum of 3 metres in width.
[33]
Prior to the commencement of any work on site in relation to this application the applicant shall lodge with the Council's Health Department an application to install a septic tank system. The application shall include a floor plan of the sanitary facilities to be constructed and details of the type of septic tank and effluent disposal system to be installed.
The development must be constructed and managed to accord with requirements of Goulburn Murray Water being:
[34]
Construction must follow sediment control principles outlined in 'Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control' (EPA, 1991);
2. No buildings or works may be erected or carried out within five metres of any Goulburn-Murray Water drainage easement/freehold and ten metres from any other structure, such as culverts, drainage inlets, subways and siphons;
[35]
All wastewater from the proposed building must be treated and disposed of using an EPA approved system, installed, operated and maintained in compliance with the relevant EPA Code of Practice and Certificate of Approval;
[36]
The wastewater disposal area must be located at least 60 metres from the Goulburn-Murray Water irrigation drains;
2. The wastewater disposal area must be located at least 60 metres from Goulburn-Murray Water irrigation drains;
3. The wastewater disposal area must be kept free of stock, buildings, driveways and service trenching and must be planted with appropriate vegetation to maximise its performance. Stormwater must be diverted away. A reserve wastewater disposal field of equivalent size to the primary disposal field must be provided for use in the event that the primary field requires resting or has failed;
4. No works are to be constructed on G-MW easement, freehold or reserve without approval. It is the responsibility of the developer to locate the easement or reserve boundary;
5. No works are to be constructed that may impact drainage flows in Goulburn-Murray Water's Shepparton Drains 14 and 14/3 without approval;
6. The applicant and Council will need to accord with the following requirements of Goulburn-Murray Water's policy on 'Acceptance of Urban and Industrial Water into Goulburn-Murray Water Drains':
1. Goulburn-Murray Water will only permit rainfall runoff to enter its drain. No other water or discharge is permitted, including sullage (grey water), sewage or water containing hydrocarbons or non approved detergents.
2. Flows from the development are to be retarded in accordance with the attached 'Criteria for Retardation Basin Design';
3. The drain level of service at this location is 1 in 10, therefore the maximum allowable discharge rate from the development is to be 1.2L/s/ha;
4. The developer will need to enter into a drainage discharge agreement prior to commencement of works on site.
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
the development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit;
the development is not completed or use is not started within four (4) years of the date of this permit.
[37]
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards.
[38]
Before the development starts, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and a minimum of three (3) copies must be provided:
A splay in the south eastern corner of the land;
Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority, pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This agreement must be registered on the title to the land pursuant to Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The owner must pay the reasonable costs of the preparation, execution and registration of the Section 173 agreement. The agreement must provide that:
[39]
The land used as a warehouse identified as that part of the site formerly within Lot 1 on PS306426K is the only land permitted to be used as a warehouse as defined under the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme;
2. Acknowledge that the use of that part of the land on Lot 1 on PS306426K as a warehouse is a non-confirming use and that the right to use for a warehouse is both protected and limited by the requirements of section 6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987;
[40]
Vehicle access to the warehouse shall only be via Lot 1 on PS306426K. Goods relating to the warehouse will only be stored on Lot 1 PS306426K;
[41]
A surveyed site plan identifying that part of the site to which the "warehouse" non-conforming use right is restricted to is included as an annexure to the agreement;
2. The definition of a warehouse as it currently appears in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme is included within the agreement.
[42]
The said agreement is to be prepared by the Council. The Council will undertake to have the agreement prepared upon written notification from the applicant. All costs associated with the preparation and registration of the agreement shall be borne by the applicant. All fees associated with the documentation must be fully paid prior to execution and registration of the document by Council.
[43]
Before the plan of subdivision is certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will from part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include
[44]
direction of stormwater run off.
2. a point of discharge for each lot. and
[45]
documentation demonstrating approval from the relevant authority for the point of discharge.
Before a Statement of Compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988 by the Responsible Authority the owner must provide a completed Form 23.
Before a Statement of Compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988 the owner must provide to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
vehicle crossing to each lot to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
independent drainage to each lot
Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance by the Greater Shepparton City Council, the subdivider is required to obtain the Authority's approval for the subdivision pursuant to Section 231 of the Water Act; The final plan is to meet the requirements of Goulburn-Murray Water.
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
the subdivision is not started (certification) within two (2) years of the date of this permit;
the subdivision is not completed (statement of compliance issued) within five (5) years of the date of this permit.
[46]
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards. Prior to approval being given for the extension of these periods the Responsible Authority may require the re-submission of Plans, Computations and other relevant information to assess compliance with current requirements, Acts and Regulations, Codes of Practice and Australian Standards, as may be relevant.
[47]
[1] Dr Sheppard provided and email to the Tribunal indicating he had intended to attend but could not on the day due to unforseen circumstances.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Stetco Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor
Respondent/Defendant:
Shepparton CC [2009] VCAT 1457
Legislation Cited (1)
Environment Act 1987
AI Analysis
Outcomeappellant
Disposition:
The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority in both proceedings and directed that permits be issued for: (a) use and development of a packing shed and cool store on 410 Old Dookie Road (permit 2007-391) in accordance with endorsed plans and conditions in Appendix A; and (b) re-alignment of title boundaries (permit 2007-72) in accordance with endorsed plans and conditions in Appendix B (Order, 1–3; Appendices A & B).