Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2026-03-06

For the reasons given above, I find that the economical and efficient servicing of the subject land requires the acquisition of easements E-2 and E-3 and that the acquisition will not result in an unreasonable loss of amenity in the area affected by it. Leave is granted for the acquisition by View Bank Homes 1 Pty Ltd of Easement E-2 and E-3, subject to the conditions included in the Tribunal order.

[1] The submissions and evidence 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] I note that easement E-1 is a 2.5 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement already existing on the adjoining land, benefiting lots on plan LP144508.

[5] From apps.nearmap.com, taken on 15 October 2025.

[7] I note that Figure 3-1 referred to in the text below is the same as Figure 11 in the DP which was included at paragraph 28 of this decision.

[10] While this is Glasson's conclusion in response to the instructions received, I note that, as is clear from the remainder of this decision, it is the role of the Tribunal to come to a conclusion as to the 'tests' in section 36, and the role of the Glasson evidence in this proceeding has been to provide expert technical evidence concerning the easements proposed and to respond to the alternatives raised.

[14] At paragraph 49 of the Mag evidence.

[15] It is noted that the applicant obtained its own cost analysis of this option estimated at $470,000 as opposed to $72,200 for Option 3 included in the Mag evidence.

[17] The image on the left is from apps.nearmap.com and taken on 15 December 2025. The image on the right is an extract from Appendix C to the Glasson evidence.

Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986

View Bank Homes 1 Pty Ltd v Whittlesea CC [2026] VCAT 153 (6 March 2026)

A development plan was first proposed for endorsement by the applicant in January 2017, and refused by the council. The applicant sought review by the Tribunal of the council's decision that the development plan was not satisfactory, and the respondent was a party to the proceeding supporting the council's position.
At paragraph 12 of its decision in Viewbank Homes Pty Ltd v Whittlesea CC [2018] VCAT 369 ('previous Tribunal decision'), the Tribunal outlined the respondent's concerns with the proposed development plan, which remain substantially unchanged in this application, post approval of the DP:

Based on the material before us, the issues which we consider to be key to our determination of the application for leave are:
- Does the economical and efficient subdivision or servicing of the applicant's land require the acquisition of the easements?
- Will the acquisition result in an unreasonable loss of amenity in the area affected by it?
  1. See eg Curry v Casey & Ors [2010] VCAT 2101; Gale v Frankston CC (Corrected) [2019] VCAT 62; Ringwood JV Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2020] VCAT 1393.
  2. See eg, JT Snipe Investments Pty Ltd v Hume CC (Red Dot) [2007] VCAT 1831; Barnett v Frankston City Council [2005] VCAT 1985.
It was agreed that the above are the two relevant questions for the Tribunal in this proceeding. The Tribunal in Red Hill also considered the meaning of the terms 'requires' and 'economical and efficient'.
I agree with the rationale of the Tribunal in the Red Hill decision, as follows:
1. I agree with the Tribunal in JT Snipe that 'requires' should be given its plain meaning of 'necessary or indispensable'. It should not be read as meaning 'reasonably required'; if section 36 had intended this it would have said so.
2. However, I also agree with the applicant that in section 36, the term 'requires' is qualified by the reference to 'economical and efficient subdivision'. In my view, this qualification is one which by its nature tempers the meaning of 'requires' by discounting options which are not economical and efficient. This appears to be the effect of the Tribunal decision in Gale, where the Tribunal indicated that merely theoretical options need not be considered.

View Bank Homes 1 Pty Ltd v Whittlesea CC [2026] VCAT 153

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (3)

View Bank Homes 1 Pty Ltd v Whittlesea CC [2026] VCAT 153 (6 March 2026)