In PPH Developments Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC (Red Dot) (corrected) [2022] VCAT 446 the Tribunal considered an application to amend an existing planning permit, including amendments to conditions to allow internally illuminated signage. The original permit included a condition that no business identification signage be internally illuminated.
In Myers v Southern Grampians SC (Red Dot) [2022] VCAT 695 the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) considered the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in an application under Section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act (“the Act”). Section 82(1) relates to an objector making an appeal to the Tribunal to review a decision to grant a planning permit.
The Victorian State Government has introduced a state-wide Planning Scheme Amendment VC205 which changes the Road Zones 1 and 2 (RZ1 and RZ2), and the Public Use Zone 4 (PUZ4), to a new Transport Zone (TRZ).
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) provides the opportunity for a planning permit to be amended, including the permit text, plans or other documents endorsed under that permit.
Recent applications to VCAT may be experiencing delays in processing as the Tribunal gets strict regarding the correct name of the permit applicant and applicant for review.
In early 2021 the Planning & Environment Act (1984) was amended to enshrine the previously temporary measures, put into place as part of the COVID 19 response, that allow documents associated with planning matters to be made available online.
Recent State-wide Planning Scheme Amendment VC174 has introduced new provisions for apartment development applications, to implement the recently revised Better Apartment Design Standards.
Planning permit applicants should be aware that a recent planning scheme amendment seeks to provide protection to extractive industries from the impacts of expanding urban areas. Amendment VC 196 applies to all planning schemes in Victoria, making changes to the Victoria Planning Provisions to provide stronger recognition and protection of existing extractive industries, and to designate […]
The recent red-dot decision in Priestley v Horsham RCC [2021] VCAT 639 considered the requirement for the minimum garden area where a proposed subdivision created 4 vacant lots, each less than 400 square metres in area, in the General Residential Zone (GRZ).
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).
