Following the above findings, the permit applicant filed a new approved CHMP with Council in early 2019. However, Council advised the applicant that a new planning permit application needed to be lodged, because the Tribunal did not remit the matter back to Council as part of the previous Order.
One Planner's Archive
Regular readers will be familiar with the fact that if a Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMP) is required as part of a planning permit application, the statutory clock doesn’t start until such time the approved CHMP is supplied.
The matter of 631 Plenty Road Preston Pty Ltd v Darebin CC  VCAT 1849 was concerned largely with the interpretation of Standard D24 of Clause 58.07 of Planning Schemes. That clause contains objectives to ensure apartments provide functional internal areas.
In Makhmalbaf v Monash CC  VCAT 1641 the Tribunal considered a proposal for two dwellings on one lot. The Monash Planning Scheme designated the site within the boundaries of the Glen Waverley Activity Centre, whereas the zone and local planning policies sought to treat the site in the same manner as other residential neighbourhoods, far removed from an activity centre.
We all use email as a common business communication tool. In a legal-sense and at VCAT, email is considered a valid means of giving notice and communication. However, the new world is not without its problems
Permit applicant’s that regularly work in Mornington Shire Council will be aware that during 2018 Council had started to assess planning permit applications against the Mornington Peninsula Housing and Settlement Strategy 2017. This strategy has formed the basis for planning scheme amendment C219 which seeks, among other things, to mandate minimum lot sizes of 300sqm and 450sqm in GRZ and NRZ respectively. However, the Minister’s office has not yet provided approval for amendment C219 to be prepared.
As most readers will be aware, when Council requests further information in relation to your planning permit application, they will specify a lapse date by which time the information must be provided. If the information is not provided then the application will lapse.
Only for the brave: Council refuses to support a planning permit application, then amends its position to support the application, then seeks to argue for the application to be refused, is then forced to support the application – but in the end the permit is refused and the permit applicant left to ponder how this ‘whole-planning-thing’ works.
In late October the State Government introduced amendment VC152, which incorporates substantial changes into the planning scheme and effects how Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACFs) are defined and assessed under Victorian Planning provisions.
Tika v Yarra CC  VCAT 894 highlights the importance of accurate information to properly assess off-site impacts, including overshadowing of neighbouring secluded private open space (SPOS) under Standard B21 of Clause 55.04-5. This was a proposal for two 3-storey dwellings on a 235sqm lot in Richmond. Errors were identified in the plans relating to the conditions of the neighbours’ land and therefore the extent of shadow proposed to the neighbours’ SPOS.