Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2007-12-20

The applicant or owner must pay to the Council a sum equivalent to 5% of the site value of all land in the subdivision or a particular lot or lots. This payment shall be made prior to the issue of Statement of Compliance and may be adjusted in accordance with Section 19 of the Subdivision Act. (Tribunal emphasis)

The condition that Member O'Leary imposed read:

The applicant or owner must pay to the Council a sum equivalent to 5% of the site value of Lot 2 in the subdivision. This payment shall be made prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance and may be adjusted in accordance with Section 19 of the Subdivision Act.

I distinguish the facts in Van Der Zweep from the facts in this case. As I have already said, I agree with council that it is not unlikely that each lot will be further subdivided at some time in the future.

Caught as I am in the dilemma between believing that there is a purpose to the clause 52.01 two-lot subdivision exemption and the council's concern that, by a progressive series of two lot subdivisions, subdividers will avoid their public open space contribution obligations, I would have been prepared to impose a section 173 agreement condition to resolve the dilemma. But my hands are tied on this matter, because of the practice day constraint imposed on me, so I have no alternative but to uphold council's condition 4.

[3] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1; [1948] 1 KB 223

[6] Rosemeier v Greater Geelong City Council (No.1) (1997) 20 AATR 86, Christian Brothers Vic Pty Ltd v Banyule City Council 9 VPR 128.

Thompson v Maroondah CC [2007] VCAT 2455 (20 December 2007)

Thompson v Maroondah CC [2007] VCAT 2455

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (11 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Thompson v Maroondah CC [2007] VCAT 2455 (20 December 2007)