Interpreting Mandatory Height Control Exemptions in Residential Zones

A recent VCAT decision, Burnley Maltings Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2021] VCAT 337, has provided a notable interpretation to the exemptions that allows development to exceed, the otherwise mandatory, ‘height’ and ‘number of storey’ restrictions contained within the General (GRZ) and Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ).

The Height Restrictions

Regular applicants will be aware that Clause 32.09-10 of the GRZ includes the mandatory height restrictions as follows:

32.08-10 Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building 

A building must not be constructed for use as a dwelling or a residential building that: 

  • exceeds the maximum building height specified in a schedule to this zone; or 
  • contains more than the maximum number of storeys specified in a schedule to this zone.

If no maximum building height or maximum number of storeys is specified in a schedule to this zone: 

  • the building height must not exceed 11 metres; and
  • the building must contain no more than 3 storeys at any point.

The provisions of the NRZ are similarly worded but provide for reduced default settings of 9 metres and 2 storeys.

The Exemptions

Both the NRZ and GRZ provide exemptions, to these mandatory height controls, for new buildings and extensions to existing buildings as follows:

A building may exceed the applicable maximum building height or contain more than the applicable maximum number of storeys if: 

  • It replaces an immediately pre-existing building and the new building does not exceed the building height orcontain a greater number of storeys than the pre-existing building. 
  • There are existing buildings on both abutting allotments that face the same street and the new building does not exceed the building height orcontain a greater number of storeys than the lower of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments.
  • It is on a corner lot abutted by lots with existing buildings and the new building does not exceed the building height orcontain a greater number of storeys than the lower of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments. 

An extension to an existing building may exceed the applicable maximum building height or contain more than the applicable maximum number of storeys if it does not exceed the building height of the existing building or contain a greater number of storeys than the existing building.

… [emphasis added]

The Mischief

The above exemptions can generally be explained as having two limbs:

  1. The first limb specifies that the proposed buildingdoes not exceed the building height of the existing building
  2. The second limb requires the proposed buildingdoes not contain a greater number of storeys than the existing building.

One significant complexity in interpreting the above exemptions relates to the use of the word “or” that separates the two limbs.

The question posed to the Tribunal was; do one or both of the limbs contained in the exemption need to be met for the exemption to be enlivened? i.e do the two limbs operate disjunctively (separately) or conjunctively (as one)?

More specifically should the exemption be interpreted as meaning an application is exempt from both the ‘height control’ and the ‘number of storeys’ control if:

  1. it does not exceed the building height of the existing building or contain a greater number of storeys than the existing building.

Or should the exemption be interpreted as meaning an application is only exempt from both the ‘height control’ and the ‘number of storeys’ control if:

  1. it does not exceed the building height of the existing building norcontain a greater number of storeys than the existing building.

VCAT’s Interpretation

The written VCAT decision in the Burnley case is more than 215 pages long and deals, in detail, with a number of complex, legalistic submissions on numerous issues relating to the above exemptions and their implications for the redevelopment of a site containing 27 metre high malt-silos, within a GRZ in the City of Yarra.

In coming to its conclusion the Tribunal noted:

  1. For the Exemption Extension to operate conjunctively it would require inferring the word ‘nor’ in place of ‘or’.

  1. I find that to interpret the Extension Exemption disjunctively produces some odd outcomes…

  1. Therefore, I prefer the submissions made by the council and objector parties that the second ‘or’ in the Extension Exemption should be read conjunctively or as ‘nor’.

 

Implication for Permit Applicants

Practitioners need to be aware that both limbs of the exemption must be met (despite the use of the word ‘or’ to separate them) in order for the mandatory ‘height’ and ‘number of storey’ controls to be exceeded within the GRZ and NRZ.

Subscribe to receive regular updates on planning issues relevant to Victorian planning permit applicants here.


Seek Professional Advice
Information contained in this publication should be considered as a reference only and is not a substitute for professional advice. No liability will be accepted for any loss incurred as a result of relying on the information contained in this publication. Seek professional advice in specific circumstances.
Copyright
If you would like to reproduce or use for your own purposes any part of this publication please contact enquiries@clause1.com.au for assistance.
Clause1 Pty Ltd
Phone: 03 9370 9599
Email: enquiries@clause1.com.au
Web: www.clause1.com.au