The decision of Koneska v Greater Geelong CC (Red Dot) [2023] VCAT 359 concerned the standing of objectors who had appealed Council’s decision to grant a permit for a telecommunications facility. The appeal was made pursuant to Section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 2023 (the Act) which enables […]
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a request for an objector to be joined as a party to proceedings
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.
A recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal “RED DOT” decision has provided clarity on the definition of “lot”, where there are multiple titles involved in one planning permit application, for example, building multiple dwellings over two titles. The decision in Clayton Gardens Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2019] VCAT 1138 considered whether the mandatory garden area requirement applies to each single lot or to the whole application area if there are multiple titles in an application. It also considered whether, if it applied to the multiple titles, whether it was reasonable to include a condition on the permit requiring the lots to be consolidated as part of the approval.
Over the past few months there have been a number of Red Dot decisions relating to changes to planning provisions that occur prior to a VCAT hearing, which will be of interest to readers.
In the first VicSmart application to be determined by VCAT, Johnson v Banyule CC [2015] VCAT 444, the Tribunal has provided a timely reminder to Councils & permit applicants that only the limited number of matters set out for each application type are relevant for consideration.
