16 No fewer than 111 car spaces must be provided on the land for the use and development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 8 of these spaces should be designated as disabled space; these must be located in close proximity to entrances complying with AS1428

15 of the above spaces may be located in the service lane area, as shown on endorsed plan 2, dated 13 December 2004.

In the event that the Responsible Authority accepts that it is not practical for the required car parking to be provided on the land, the Responsible Authority may accept car parking on another site consolidated with the subject land.

37 All allotments comprising the land subject to this permit must be consolidated into one allotment prior to the commencement of use authorised or required by this permit.

2. Pursuant to section 126 of the VCAT Act I order that the time within which an application for review may be made by the permit applicant against the conditions contained in the notice of decision subject of these proceedings be extended to 5 August 2005.

3. I order that the application for review of conditions lodged on 5 August 2005 be amended by adding, in relation to the review of condition 16, the following:

(c) Insert the words "may accept a cash in lieu contribution or similar for the provision of parking to the satisfaction of the responsible authority".

(given orally at the hearing and subsequently revised)

1 In this case the council issued a notice of decision that did not accord with the resolution of the council deciding to grant the permit. Thinking it had the power to correct this, the council then resolved to add additional or varied conditions so that the notice of decision that was issued would stand as its decision. Subsequently it realised that this was not open to it. The matters are set out in detail in the letter from Maddocks, solicitors, acting on behalf of the council to the tribunal dated 12 August 2005. It is unnecessary to articulate the detailed facts in these reasons.

2 In the circumstances it is appropriate that the tribunal exercise its powers in section 127 of the VCAT Act to order that a document in the proceeding, namely the notice of decision, be amended. This will give affect to what I regard as the true intent of the council: a true intent that would appear not to have been expressed only by reason of a mistake.

3 In making this order I am satisfied that no party to the proceeding is prejudiced. It does not affect the rights of either the permit applicant or the objectors to put their case in relation to the substance of the matter. The tribunal is focused on achieving the fair resolution of the substance of issues before it, rather than on procedural questions; and it is appropriate when procedural deficiencies arise to correct them so as to enable the parties to get on and deal with the substantive issues.

4 A letter was forwarded to the tribunal yesterday by email from Mr Ivan Hooper. That letter requested an adjournment. I do not regard an adjournment as appropriate as it is important that the proceedings of the tribunal progress in a timely way. In any event I have taken Mr Hooper's written submission into account in determining the appropriate course.

5 In his written submission Mr Hooper makes various allegations concerning the legality of the council's actions. I am not persuaded that any of these submissions should be upheld. The purpose of s.127 is to enable documents to be amended where it is just and appropriate to do so. One such circumstance is where there has been some form of mistake which can be corrected without causing injustice. I think that applies here.

6 I was informed that the hearing of this case is likely to take three days. I ask the parties to inform the tribunal in writing whether the location of the hearing should be in Melbourne or in a location closer to the subject land.