By now you may be aware (or soon will be) of the fee increases now in place when making a application for the review of planning permit applications to VCAT under the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act).
The recent VCAT decision in SMA Projects Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2013] VCAT 436, tested the argument of financial viability i.e. whether the financial viability of a proposal was relevant in justifying a development. The proposal was for the development of a site with 350 dwellings and commercial uses (an increase from a previously approved application) and included the restoration of heritage buildings.
Some interesting issues have recently come to light regarding the obligations for joint Applications for Review to VCAT.
Members will be aware that a planning permit applicant has the ability to amend plans or amend an application before the hearing, where the matter has been appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Seasoned developers and regular readers of BDAV News alike would be more than familiar with the extensive delays in getting matters heard at VCAT.
A recent VCAT matter, BMF Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2011], has thrown a spanner into the restrictions contained within numerous Schedules to Zones across Victoria. In the BMF case the Tribunal was asked to determine whether a schedule to a Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) that specified a minimum dimension for a lot was lawful.
A recent ‘red dot’ decision (7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd v Nillumbik SC & Ors [2011] VCAT 2418) came to our attention where a permit holder approached VCAT to amend a permit under Section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act.
In a recent VCAT decision (reported in the Victorian Planning Reports) the Tribunal has chastised Banyule City Council for relying on vague ‘uninformative’ grounds of refusal and put Councils on notice that repeat offences may result in costs being awarded.
We at Clause:1 were interested to read a recent VCAT decision (Hutchins v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council [2001] VCAT 2007) issued in October 2011. The decision permitted the removal of a ‘single dwelling’ restrictive covenant and overturned a long established perception that Council cannot approve the removal (or variation) of a restrictive covenant if a beneficiary to that covenant objects.
Permit applicants regularly working within the jurisdiction of Mornington Shire Council will be familiar with DDO2 and its requirements that include inter alia:
