Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2025-09-04

The applicant submitted that the level of information in the permit application material was wholly inadequate in order to assess the impacts of the proposal. It said that there are numerous matters set out in the zone decision guidelines that must be assessed, and without adequate information, such matters are unable to be satisfied. These include[3]:
- how the development conserves the values identified for the land in the RCZ2, including to:
  - protect the treed landscape values of the land;
  - retain and protect remnant native vegetation and wildlife habitat of the land;
  - protect the nature conservation values and habitat values of the adjacent Lerderderg State Park; and
  - ensure that the location, siting and design of any development does not adversely impact upon nearby sensitive environments;
- whether the development protects and enhances the environmental, agricultural and landscape qualities of the site and its surrounds;
- whether the site is suitable for the development and the compatibility of the proposal with adjoining land uses;
- an assessment of the likely environmental impact on the biodiversity and in particular the flora and fauna of the area;
- protection and enhancement of the natural environment of the area, including the retention of vegetation and faunal habitats and the need to revegetate land including riparian buffers along waterways, gullies, ridgelines, property boundaries and saline discharge and recharge areas; and
- how the development relates to sustainable land management and the need to prepare an integrated land management plan which addresses the protection and enhancement of native vegetation and waterways, stabilisation of soil and pest plant and animal control.
The applicant submitted that the respondent has yet to produce any further material which demonstrates the nature, extent or impacts of the earthworks.

The only other information accompanying the permit application that indicates what is proposed, was what can only be described as a very rudimentary hand-drawn plan, and a soil report which relates to a site where the fill has been sourced from. The purpose of the soil report, however, purports to demonstrate whether the fill is 'clean' fill - it otherwise has no relationship to the subject site.
Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with hand drawing relevant information[4], the level of detail on the plan provided is scant, at best. Shortcomings of this include information that is ordinarily required to assess a proposal:
1. There is no orientation point,
2. no indication of the supposed 1500m2 area and where this part of the site sits in relation to the remainder of the site (when the site is greater than 17 hectares in area),
3. no property boundaries,
4. no indication of land slope or other topographic features which are prominently evident from photographs submitted,
5. no indicated setbacks from boundaries and other relevant features, the extent and shape of the 1500m2, and its proximity to other features and property boundaries.

This type of information is not difficult to include, nor is it something that the council could not have ordinarily required and reasonably expected for an application of this nature.

Part of the area where fill is proposed to be placed.[5]

Even when read together, from the three documents that purport to set out the details of the proposal, it is still impossible to determine what is proposed. In particular, the site plan is fatally devoid of necessary information.
Furthermore, there are no other drawings such as section or elevation drawings indicating the depth at any one, or various, points across the part of the site where the fill is to be placed.
Whilst further details of the exact location were set out verbally at the hearing, verbal submissions setting out some of this detail during the hearing are not a substitute for proper documentation.
The council advised in its written submissions that no further information was requested and that it was determined that no material detriment would result and so notice of the application was not undertaken. Notwithstanding, two objections were lodged against the proposal.

Extract of the council's written submissions filed for the hearing.

In light of the scant information the council did have, it is quite surprising that no further information was requested by the council. Moreover, I find it remarkable that the council chose to progress the application, and astonishing that it chose to grant approval for it.
In this regard, whilst it is incumbent upon permit applicants to provide information that enables a decision maker to properly assess the application, the council has a duty to properly administer its own planning scheme by ensuring that planning permit applications are properly administered and assessed. This requires adequate information to be provided or requested by the council in the absence of such. The council has the power to request further information, and if that is not forthcoming, it can determine to refuse an application on that basis. It is incomprehensible in this case, why that did not occur.

I have not assessed the merits of the proposal, because I am unable to do so with the level of information provided as part of the permit application. For this reason, I also did not inspect the site, as it may have been akin to supplanting relevant information that should otherwise have been provided in the permit application material.
For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. No permit is granted.

[1] All appearances were via an online platform.

[2] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[3] Paragraphs 51 and 52 of the applicant's written submissions.

[4] Noting that once upon a time, all plans were hand-drawn.

Environment Act 1987

Ticehurst v Moorabool SC (No. 2) [2025] VCAT 789 (4 September 2025)

Ticehurst v Moorabool SC

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (14 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

Ticehurst v Moorabool SC (No. 2) [2025] VCAT 789 (4 September 2025)