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.
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.
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.
The Planning and Environment Amendment (Objectors Review Timing) Regulations 2018 came into effect on 1 July 2018. This amendment standardises the time in which an objector to a planning permit application can apply for review to VCAT (i.e. appeal) against Council’s intention (NOD) to grant a permit.
Does a fire causing significant damage to heritage buildings undermine the ability of the Tribunal to hear an Application for Review lodged prior to the fire?
Regular readers and applicants will be aware of Section 115CA of the VCAT Act, introduced in 2014. Section 115CA provides that the VCAT application fee for a permit applicant’s appeal against ‘failure-to-determine’ (within the 60 day statutory timeframe) is required to be reimbursed by Counci
Clause 1 regularly represents clients at VCAT and, since the introduction of Daily Hearing Fees we have been concerned with the potential for significant and unreasonable additional costs to permit applicants. Daily Hearing Fees are payable for each day (or part thereof) the Tribunal sits in hearing a matter. Generally, the fees vary between approximately $350 – $3400 per day, depending on the type of case and type of applicant.
A recent VCAT case, Chin v Boroondara CC [2017] VCAT 521, looked at the issue of exemptions from third party notification and review rights and provides a timely reassurance that these exemptions must be upheld.
Occasionally a planning permit is issued with a mistake or clerical error which has an unintended impact on a proposal, particularly where it allows something different to that which was intended to be improved, or where a condition of permit is made unworkable, irrelevant or unclear by that error.
A no-show by an objector’s representative at a VCAT hearing has highlighted the importance of maintaining professional standards in dealings with the Tribunal.
