[2008] VCAT 2390
General information, not legal advice.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2008-11-28
Mr J
Original judgment source is linked above.
b) Location of tree protection barriers for existing trees to be retained;
c) The hedge planting proposed adjacent to the west boundary of 86 Union Street replaced with planting that will reach a height of approximately 2 metres; and
a) transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;
e) line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes; and
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.
[1] Mr Kocdag raised issues regarding the setbacks shown on the advertised plans. Discussions at the hearing revealed that although the applicant had submitted amended plans on 13 February 2008, which amongst other things increased setbacks to the eastern boundary, Council had sent notice of the application to nearby residents prior to receiving amended plans. The notice on the land, placed by the applicant, post dated the lodgment of amended plans. Some parties at the hearing had inspected the original plans and others had inspected the amended plans. I asked Mr Bitmead to explain the changes and I was satisfied that, although confusing and poor procedure by Council, persons who may incur material detriment by the grant of a permit had the opportunity to object to the grant of a permit and to be party to this application for review.
[2] At Clause 22.09 Discretionary uses in residential areas.
[3] Referred to at Clauses 21.05, 21.05 and 22.07-3.
[4] [2003] VCAT 1934 Paragraph 35
[5] Landscape Plan Rev D dated 20 October 2008 prepared by Landarche.
[6] Advice from Dale Kelly Urban Design Planner dated 29 February 2008.
[7] Permit No P12843 issued by Heritage Victoria on 29 October 2008.
[8] Accompanying a letter dated 7 November 2008 from Best Hooper Solicitors addressed to the Tribunal and copied to other parties.
[9] Exemption included at Clause 43.01 of the Bayside Planning Scheme under Amendment VC49 gazetted 15 September 2008.
[10] At Clauses 12.05, 15.11 and 19.03 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
[11] At Clauses 21.04-2 and 21.09 of the Scheme.
[12] Heritage assessment of impact of proposed aged care facility on the former St John the Less church and schoolroom by Trevor Westmore Urban Design and Heritage Conservation dated 14 February 2008.
[13] Landscape Plan Rev D dated 20 October 2008 prepared by Landarche and circulated to parties prior to the final day of hearing.
[14] At Clauses 55.04-3 Daylight to existing windows objective; 55.04-4 North facing windows objective; 55.04-5 Overshadowing open space objective of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
[15] A traffic report prepared in association with a previous proposal for a 120 bed high/low care facility on the review site by Grogan Richards dated 25 September 2002.
[16] At Clause 52.34 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
[17] As referred to earlier the site is located within Precinct D2 and the Character Area Statement and Precinct Guidelines are contained in Clause 22.07-4 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
[18] Landscape Plan Rev D dated 20 October 2008 prepared by Landarche.
[19] Including the DDO2 at Clause 43.02; Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas at Clause 22.09; Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.07; Landscaping objectives at Clause 55.03-8.
[20] Arboricultural Assessment 709-723 Hawthorn Road Bentleigh [sic] prepared by James Martens Mullaly of Tree Logic dated 20 October 2008.
[21] I have referred to the condition numbers as they appeared in the draft conditions circulated by Council. The numbers change in my order.
Vasey RSL Care Ltd
Bayside CC [2008] VCAT 2390