Wanless v South Gippsland SC [2007] VCAT 1886

These are two section 87 applications made by a person under section 89 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on the basis that Mr Wanless believes he should have been given notice of the permit applications and was not given that notice. The purpose of the directions hearing was to consider the status of the applications and extent of notice required to be given of the applications.
The circumstances surrounding the grant of the two permits in question[1] are messy to say the least.
In each case, the permit issued is for use and development of a dwelling on separate parcels of crown allotments. Prior to the permits being granted, various other applications concerning the land were lodged and withdrawn. In application 2005/498, the consultant for the permit applicant provided a statutory declaration that notice had been given in accordance with council's direction, including to Mr Wanless. However, Mr Wanless says he never received the notice and he provided statutory declarations from two other people who were also allegedly given notice that they did not receive notice either. In respect of application 2006/459, notice was not required to be given, although Mr Wanless submits that it should.
The situation is complicated by errors in the permits issued by the council relating to the description of the subject land for which permission for a dwelling has been given. The crown allotment numbers are wrong and do not tally with the crown allotment numbers specified in conditions requiring consolidation. Some amendment of the permits would appear to be required in this respect.
I have decided that I cannot properly deal with the issues raised by these applications simply on the basis of the material presented at this directions hearing. I propose to list the matter for hearing before a legal member. It may be opportune for the land owner/permit holder to take the opportunity to apply to amend the permits at the same time in order to rectify (if appropriate) any misdescription of the subject land or to amend conditions.
However, whilst I am listing these matters for hearing, it is important for Mr Wanless to appreciate that the Tribunal's role in this type of case is not to focus exclusively on process issues, but to arrive at the preferred outcome. This means that Mr Wanless will need to demonstrate how he has been adversely affected, in a planning sense, if he is to succeed on the merits, assuming he has first been able to establish his grounds for making the application and that he has the requisite standing under section 89(1) of the Act.
I do not consider that any further notice of the applications is required.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Wanless v South Gippsland SC [2007] VCAT 1886 (5 October 2007)

Parties