Get documents about "APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT 20-28 SABRE DRIVE, PORT MELBOURNE
Description
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT 20-28 SABRE DRIVE, PORT MELBOURNE
Document Sample
Page 1 of 16
PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Agenda Item 5.10
3 October 2006
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT: 20-28 SABRE DRIVE,
PORT MELBOURNE
Division Sustainability & Innovation
Presenter Con Livanos, Manager Development Planning
Purpose
1. To advise of an application for planning approval for buildings and works to construct two, two-
storey buildings to comprise 14 warehouses, two offices and display of illuminated business
identification signs.
Summary
Application Number: TP-2006-294
Proposal: Buildings and works to construct two, two-storey buildings to comprise 14
warehouses, two offices and display of illuminated business identification signs
Applicant: Austexx Pty Ltd C/- SJB Planning Pty Ltd
Zoning: Industrial 1 Zone
Overlay: None
Existing Use: Vacant Land
Number of None, the application was not advertised
Objections:
Recommendation from Management
2. That the Planning Committee determine to issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit on
the grounds that:
2.1. the fragmentation of a large industrial lot into 16 tenancies;
2.2. use of two of these for offices is not consistent with Planning Scheme direction to encourage
‘new major manufacturing’ into the area; and
2.3. the direction to discourage small scale industrial and commercial development and subdivision
in Port Melbourne.
Page 2 of 16
Key Issues
Proposal
3. The development is described in the submitted drawings (Attachment 1) which includes:
3.1. the construction of two, two-storey buildings comprising eight tenancies each (for a total of
16) on Lots 7 and 10 of PS513387M;
3.2. lot 7 is 4273m2 and lot 10 is 4620m2, for a total site area of 8893m2;
3.3. 14 tenancies are proposed to be warehouses with ancillary showrooms and offices. Floor
areas range from 256m2 to 410m2;
3.4. two tenancies are proposed to be used as offices. Each office has a floor area of 436m2;
3.5. the external finishes include a range of contemporary materials including painted sheet
cladding, alucabond and coloured glass;
3.6. two internally illuminated blade signs are proposed at the Sabre Drive frontage but no detail
of the signs was included with the application;
3.7. the development includes three crossovers to Sabre Drive and a vehicle driveway and
parking around the perimeter of the site. A central driveway separates the two buildings
providing access to the rear of the tenancies and loading bay facilities;
3.8. roads are proposed to remain in private ownership; and
3.9. 118 car parking spaces are provided.
Site Description
4. The site is located on the west side of Sabre Drive, between Lorimer Street to the north and Wharf
Road to the south.
5. The site comprises two rectangular lots with a combined frontage to Sabre Drive of 89 metres,
depth of 100 metres for a total combined area of 8863m2.
6. The adjoining land to the north is currently vacant. Planning Permit TP-2006-154 was issued on
9 June 2006 to develop and use the adjoining three lots to the north for a wine bottling facility with
ancillary offices and restaurant. This development will occupy three lots within the subdivision for a
total site area of 16,991m2.
7. Land to the east, across Sabre Drive is developed with 4 two storey warehouse buildings. These
buildings comprise a total of 28 tenancies. Four of these are offices and the remainder are
warehouses.
8. Land to the south is vacant.
9. Land to the west is developed with industrial buildings used by Hawker De Havilland aircraft
industries complex.
10. The above mentioned surrounding properties and their proximity to the subject site are shown on the
attached context plan (Attachment 2).
2
Page 3 of 16
Assessment
11. The key issue associated with the assessment of the proposal is that the proposed development does
not comply with the strategic directions for the area outlined in the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
12. In addition, there are several detailed development matters relating to loading bays, private roads,
signage and landscaping that have not been adequately resolved by the applicant.
Strategic Planning Reviews
13. The Fishermans Bend area in Port Melbourne contains some 300 hectares of land located to the
south west of the municipality. The adjoining Port of Melbourne is Australia’s largest container and
general cargo port and major gateway to Victoria and the Capital City. The Port operates 24 hours
a day and treatment and use of nearby land must not interfere with its operations. The Port of
Melbourne is covered by a separate planning scheme administered by the Minister for Planning.
14. The area has undergone a transformation in recent years from a traditional manufacturing area to a
mix of advanced manufacturing, business/park small factory development along with a number of
distribution and warehouse related activities. What were once large under-utilised lots have been
sold and developed in a more intensive speculative manner accommodating smaller warehouse
/office type developments. This has decreased the flexibility of land to accommodate a range of
land uses.
Melbourne 2030
15. Melbourne 2030 identifies Fishermans Bend as an important precinct where development should
not jeopardise the needs of the adjoining Port of Melbourne as a working port and as one of the
State’s most important gateways. The key initiatives for Fishermans Bend in Melbourne 2030 are
the protection of the Port by adequate buffer areas to prevent land-use conflicts.
Port Melbourne Structure Plan
16. In 1999 Council developed the Port Melbourne Structure Plan. The purpose of the Structure Plan
was to facilitate development of the Fishermans Bend area as the preferred location for clean, value
added manufacturing, research and development and to strengthen and retain existing industry. The
Structure Plan identified three precincts reflecting the area’s dominant, physical and development
characteristics. These are the Yarra Gate Precinct, Small Medium Enterprise Precinct and the
Corporate Precinct. The directions of the Structure Plan are included into the Municipal Strategic
Statement.
Municipal Strategic Statement
17. The revised Municipal Strategic Statement (“MSS”) was approved by the Minister for Planning
on 8 December 2005. Council’s vision for Fishermans Bend contained in the MSS states that the
area continues to accommodate new industrial development, including advanced manufacturing and
ancillary commercial development and industry. The MSS also seeks to protect the Port from the
encroachment of residential and other sensitive uses. Land use strategies in the MSS discourage
small scale industrial and commercial development and subdivision that is not related to advanced
manufacturing and research and development uses. The policy discourages the location of sensitive
activities not compatible with the operation of the port or other industrial uses.
3
Page 4 of 16
Port Melbourne Land Use and Activity Study
18. In 2003, the City of Melbourne, Port of Melbourne Corporation and the Department of Sustainability
and Environment commissioned Charter Keck Cramer, a strategic property advisory firm, to
investigate the nature of land use activity occurring within the Fishermans Bend area. The study
found that the wider Port Melbourne industrial precinct has evolved into a high profile
industrial/corporate location. The study also found that the demand for larger industrial sites for
physical manufacturing has declined over recent decades as industry restructuring and business
reorganisation has encouraged greater flexibility in choice and size of location. Fishermans Bend
has the potential to attract activities related to advanced manufacturing.
19. The study also explored potential planning options to deal with its findings whilst maintaining
sufficient flexibility for advanced manufacturing and associated uses to locate and grow in the area.
These options or planning tools include the development of new local planning policies for the area
which address minimum lot sizes, changes to the zoning in some cases, changes to the provisions
within the zones to deal with speculative development proposals.
Fishermans Bend Planning Review
20. The Planning Group has been appointed to prepare a report which will review the current planning
scheme provisions for Fishermans Bend.
21. This review follows on from the recommendations of the Port Melbourne Land Use and Activity
Study; in addition, the recent proposals for rezoning and various planning applications for land use
and subdivision have highlighted a policy ‘gap’. The MSS provides a broad description of the three
precincts but more specific guidance is needed, particularly relating to the types of land uses that
are to be encouraged and discouraged within these areas.
22. The Planning Group have been appointed to complete this work. The scope of the project includes
looking at the existing strategic policy framework and identifying suitable planning mechanisms that
support the existing strategies of Council and State Government and provide clear decision
guidelines for the assessment of planning permit applications, requests to rezone land and subdivision
applications.
23. In the brief, the consultant has been requested to address the following matters:
23.1. stress the competitive strength of the area and the desire to build on the existing industry
clusters, particularly in relation to the aerospace and car manufacturing sectors;
23.2. ensure that the Port of Melbourne operations are addressed;
23.3. identify the differences in the Corporate, Small Medium Enterprise and Yarra Gate Precincts
in terms of land uses and activities that are encouraged and discouraged;
23.4. discourage the rezoning of land zoned Industrial 1 unless there are strong strategic reasons to
do so and guarantees are in place so that future uses are genuinely linked to advanced
manufacturing or are port related, and Council is satisfied the proposed development of the
site is consistent with the overall vision for Fishermans Bend;
23.5. define “small scale industrial and commercial development and subdivision” as found in the
MSS; and
23.6. develop a preferred lot sizes and/or minimum lot sizes for the different precincts.
4
Page 5 of 16
24. The recommendations of the report are currently being finalised, it is anticipated the report will be
available for consideration in October.
Previous Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C49
25. This amendment proposed to rezone this land and adjoining lots from Industrial 1 Zone to a Business
Zone. At its meeting of 8 July 2004 the former Planning and Development Committee resolved to:
25.1. abandon Amendment C49 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme; and
25.2. advise the applicant that Council would be prepared to facilitate an office development on
land facing Lorimer Street where it can be demonstrated by identification of a specific tenant
that it will contribute to advanced manufacturing activities complementary to the existing
industrial activities of the area.
26. The officers report to the former Planning and Development Committee summarised that the
rezoning request should not be supported because:
26.1. the proposed Business 3 Zone may result in free standing office development bearing no
relationship to key industry in the area and creating a precedence for other sites;
26.2. the proponent had not demonstrated that future tenants will contribute to advanced
manufacturing and industrial activities complementary to the existing key activities in the
area;
26.3. submissions to the amendment did not support the rezoning;
26.4. existing strategic policy statement recognised the importance of major industry in the area
and its protection from potentially incompatible uses; and
26.5. policy for Fishermans Bend was being developed to assist in achieving a link between
Council’s vision for the area and the zone controls in the planning scheme to provide decision
making guidance in assessing planning applications and rezoning proposals.
Issues Relating to Strategic Direction for the area
27. The key issue of concern relates to the fragmentation of two large industrial lots into smaller
tenancies.
28. When the request to rezone the land from Industrial 1 Zone to Business 3 Zone (Amendment C49)
was made, the proponent, SJB Planning stated that the intention of the land was to develop the land
as a ’high quality industrial/business park estate.’ This rezoning request received submissions
from Boeing, The Port of Melbourne Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment,
the City of Port Phillip and the Herald and Weekly Times. The shared concern was that the
rezoning would undermine the industrial nature of the area and availability of appropriate industrial
land close to the CBD and the Port.
29. While the rezoning request was before Council, several planning permits for business park
developments by Austexx Pty Ltd that are similar to the current proposal were approved mid 2003
and early 2004. These are located on the east side of Sabre Drive and have been strata-subdivided
since the construction of the buildings. These subdivisions have seen four large industrial lots
divided into 28 tenancies.
5
Page 6 of 16
30. The result is the loss of large area industrial lots, and the potential for location of new major
manufacturing industry in the area is eroded with each development and subsequent subdivision of
land. The applicant has written in their application submission that the building proposed under the
current permit application will also be subdivided.
31. This potential fragmentation of larger industrial lots into smaller ones is not consistent with State
Planning Policy to:
“ensure availability of land for industry…’ and that ‘non-industrial land uses should
not be approved which prejudices the availability of land for future industrial
requirements.”
32. The Port Authority, who objected to the rezoning request, have further commented that their
concerns remain for this proposal due to the overall intensification of office use close to the port
operations.
33. Council’s Local Policy Department, have stated their objection to the proposal due to the proposal’s
departure from the strategic policy direction for the area to attract new major manufacturing and
discourage small-scale development and subdivision. As noted previously, the Local Policy
department are currently undertaking a planning review of the Fisherman’s Bend area to attempt to
address the current speculative fragmentation of industrial sites.
34. The Local Policy Framework of the Melbourne Planning Scheme divides the Port Melbourne
/Fisherman’s Bend area into three precincts. This is shown in Figure 22 of Clause 22.08-11
(Attachment 3). The site is located in the Corporate Precinct.
35. The relevant strategies for the Corporate Precinct are:
35.1. to support development in the area to attract new major manufacturing businesses and
corporate headquarters; and
35.2. to discourage small scale industrial and commercial development and subdivision in Port
Melbourne that is not related to advanced manufacturing.
36. The proposed development fails to comply with the strategic vision for the area. The proposed
multiple tenancies are not suitable to house a new major manufacturing business. The proposal is
for a small scale warehouse development that is specifically discouraged by policy. The applicant
has provided no evidence that the building is to be used for advanced manufacturing. The office
component is also inconsistent with the purpose of the zone and the strategic direction of the MSS.
The applicant has also indicated, and history shows that, if approved, the building will be strata
subdivided resulting in further loss of large industrial lots in the area.
37. This type of ‘business park’ development is more consistent with the policy for ‘Yarra Gate’ and
the ‘Small to Medium Enterprise Precinct’ to the east of the site. The Yarra Gate Precinct is
where Council envisages a diversification of business and industrial support services. The ‘Small to
Medium Enterprise Precinct’ is envisaged to be developed as a transitional area between the larger
manufacturing industries to the west from the more intensive industrial businesses and business
incubators to the north and east.
38. In a recent letter to the Development Planning Branch dated 14 September 2006, the applicant’s
planning consultant notes that the planning policy and market forces do not currently align with each
other. As noted earlier, the MSS has only recently been adopted and is based upon recent reviews.
The MSS represents a long term market strategy. It has been acknowledged that the area is still
evolving and further reviews are being undertaken.
6
Page 7 of 16
39. In this letter the applicant has also agreed, in principle , to enter into a Section 173 Agreement as a
mechanism to prevent the further subdivision of lots 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 and 16. This agreement would
be subject to approval of the current applic ation and the approval of a similar development on lot 11
(to the south of the subject site) which is yet to be applied for. The offset of this subdivision
limitation against the approval of these two applications is not considered to be warranted.
40. The views of Council’s Business Melbourne Branch were sought regarding the proposal. They
advised that:
“Consultation with the Department of Innovation Industry and Regional Development
has confirmed their preference to retain industrial land in large holdings as it is
becoming more and more difficult to locate, especially for any businesses that are
looking at being in the inner/middle metropolitan, rather than on the fringe. That said,
they have no specific policy position on subdivision although they do argue against
subdivision of large industrial holdings when they get a departmental or ministerial
opportunity to do so. They would not favour the further subdivision of industrial land
in Port Melbourne/Fishermans Bend area as this would result in reduced options to
work with in terms of seeking to attract investment into areas closer to the CBD.”
“It may be the case that the market will not generate much interest on the part of very
large industrial users at Port Melbourne/Fishermans Bend, due mainly to the rise in
land prices. There may still be possibilities of some smaller operations, (1000-
1500m2), but these will be few in number and may take a time coming. The demand in
the area is most likely to be from businesses, (not always industries), that seek supply
chain or support service proximity to other major companies in the area, (eg, Holden,
Boeing/HdH, Kraft, HWT, etc.), or want CBD/Port proximity and good access to City
Link. Some of these will be mid-sized, but most will be smallish.” and
“What we need to be able to do is constrain wholesale subdivision of our large
industrial sites in the manner of more traditional industrial estates across parts of
suburban Melbourne. Perhaps we need a solution that provides for larger allotments
with higher quality development on the main street frontages, with smaller
office/warehouse developments in behind. Whatever is done, operational protection
for the existing large industries, and the retention of opportunities for those
businesses that will support them, is essential.”
41. There have been ongoing discussions between Business Melbourne and potential occupiers in the
area. As advanced manufacturing is a key sector of interest for the Council and as this sector is
geographically located in Fisherman’s Bend, they are always seeking business opportunities that will
enhance the automotive and aerospace concentration in the area.
42. Business Melbourne has had numerous discussions with many developers/property owners,
including Austexx, regarding potential businesses looking to locate in the area.
43. The views of the Port of Melbourne Corporation (“PoMC”) were also sought. They responded as
follows:
“As you are aware PoMC objected to the rezoning application for this site to B3Z.
Our concerns related to loss of industrial land close to the port and the amenity
expectations of office developments particularly fronting Lorimer St. These concerns
would still apply to an overall intensification of office use but are obviously harder to
relate to this particular proposal.”
7
Page 8 of 16
Detailed issues relating to the development
44. The internal roads within the development are to remain as private roads that Council has no
authority over. Council has experie nced significant problems in the past with several other
developments where roads were in private ownership and as property owners have an expectation
that Council will resolve disputes relating to access and other infrastructure issues.
45. If the roads were to be designated as public highways they would have to be modified to Council’s
standards which would require straight sided roads with 1.8 metre wide footpaths on either side.
Road carriageway widths would have to be a minimum of 6 metres (or as required to accommodate
medium rigid vehicles) and constructed of asphalt. Lighting, road marking and signage would also
be required to meet Australian Standards. Engineering Services have commented that such
changes would make the development, as proposed, unworkable.
46. The loading bays are not of adequate dimensions to accommodate medium rigid vehicles).
Modifications would be required to the loading bays to increase their length. This change could be
required as a condition of a permit if one were to issue.
47. No details have been provided for the signage at the Sabre Drive frontage. This was requested
from the applicant but not provided. Details could be required as a condition of a permit if one were
to issue.
48. Landscape requires further resolution through discussions with Council. This could also be resolved
through a permit condition.
Relation to Council Policy (including MSS)
49. The State Planning Policy Framework (“SPPF”) includes objectives to:
49.1. protect ports by ensuring adequate land use buffers are used;
49.2. ensure planning and development of Fisherman’s Bend does not jeopardise the needs of the
Port of Melbourne as a working port and one of the States most significant gateways;
49.3. ensure availability of land for industry;
49.4. protect and carefully plan existing industrial areas that include key manufacturing or
processing industries; and
49.5. protect and preserve land adjacent to ports due to their value for uses which depend on
proximity to the port.
50. The MSS includes policy to support clean, high profile, advanced manufacturing in Fisherman’s
Bend, and limit development of commercial and retail uses that are not ancillary to industrial use.
51. The MSS identifies three precincts within the Port Melbourne area and identifies preferred
outcomes for each (See Attachment 3). The site is located in the western ‘Corporate Precinct’
where policy encourages the development of ‘new major manufacturing businesses and corporate
headquarters.’ The central and eastern ‘Small to Medium Enterprise’ and ‘Yarra Gate’ precincts
are the locations where smaller enterprises are more compatible with policy. The MSS discourages
small scale industrial and commercial development and subdivision in Port Melbourne that is not
related to advanced manufacturing and research and development uses.
8
Page 9 of 16
Time Frame
52. Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”) provides that an applicant for
permit may appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) against failure of the
Responsible Authority to grant a planning permit within 60 days, commencing from the date the
application was lodged. At the time this application is considered by the Committee, this 60
statutory day period will has been reached.
Consultation
53. Under the requirements of Clause 31.01-4, a Permit is required to construct a building or construct
of carry out works. Such an application ‘is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a),
(b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section
82(1) of the Act.
54. Under the requirements of Clause 31.01-1, a Permit is required to use land for ‘office’. A
maximum of 500m2 of office area is allowed per lot. The use as office is not exempt from notice
and appeal. It was considered that issues relating to the office use would not cause detriment to
neighbouring properties in the area and accordingly the application was not advertised.
55. No permit is required to use land for ‘warehouse’ and the construction of buildings and the use for
warehouse is exempt from notice and appeal.
Finance
56. There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations contained in this report.
Legal
57. Division 1 of Part 4 of the Act sets out the requirements in relation to applications for permits
pursuant to the relevant planning scheme.
Background
History
58. The site is part of the former Hawker de Haviland aircraft industries complex. Planning Permit
TP-2002-1286 was issued 19 March 2003 for subdivision of the land and creation of a road between
Lorimer and Wharf Road, known as Sabre Drive. The subdivision created 18, large scale lots
ranging from 3,158m2 to 6,599m2 in area.
59. Planning Permit TP03/321 was issued 17 July 2003 for the development of Lots 5 and 8 to create
14 industrial/warehouse buildings. This land is known as 11-25 Sabre Drive and is located to the
east of the subject site. Following this, Planning permit TP03/1000 was issued on the 29 January
2004 for the change of use for two units of Lots 5 and 8 to an office.
60. Planning permit TP03/999 was issued on 2 February 2004 for the development of 16
industrial/warehouse buildings to lots 6 and 7 Sabre Drive. This permit has not been acted on. The
current application is for lots 7 and 10. This permit expired 2 February 2006.
9
Page 10 of 16
61. Planning permit TP03/1144 was issued on 11 February 2004 for the development of 12
industrial/warehouse buildings to lots 9 and 12 Sabre Drive.
62. At the time the above development and use permits were issued by Council, a request to rezone the
entire subdivision from Industrial 1 Zone to Business 3 Zone was being considered by Council. This
was lodged by SJB Planning in June 2002 and was abandoned on 29 July 2004 as it was unlikely to
be supported.
63. Planning permit TP-2006-154 was issued on 9 June 2006 for development and use of a wine bottling
facility at 262-276 Lorimer Street with a site area of 16,991m2.
64. At the time of writing this report, several other applications are being considered by Council for the
area. These are:
64.1. TP-2006-442: for construction of a 3 storey building for use as warehouses with ancillary
offices and showroom, a café, media studio and two offices, display of signage and reduction
in the standard car parking requirement on part of lots 3 and 4 of 282-292 Lorimer Street;
64.2. TP06/134: four lot re-subdivision of lots 11, 13 and 14 on PS513387M at 1-15 Wharf Road
and 38-64 Sabre Drive;
64.3. TP06/135: three lot re-subdivision of lots 3 and 4 on PS513387M at 278-292 Lorimer Street
and 1-9 Sabre Drive; and
64.4. TP06/136: three lot re-subdivision of lots 15 and 16 on PS513387M at 19-39 Wharf Road and
47-63 Sabre Drive.
65. All these applications are made for land owned by Austexx Pty Ltd within the Sabre Drive
subdivision, including the development application for five warehouses, two offices, a media studio
and a café. The re-subdivision applications each create one additional lot and result in smaller
industrial lots.
66. All these permit applications are currently ‘on hold’ at the request of the applicant. They are all
contrary to the policy direction in the same manner as the current application. As shown in
Attachment 2, the current proposal is not a ‘one off’. It can be assumed that the other pending
applications for the surrounding land are on hold awaiting the outcome of this application.
Attachments:
1. Applicat ion plans
2. Local area context plan
3. Local Policy Strategic Plan Figure 22
10
Page 11 of 16
Attachment 1
Agenda Item 5.10
Planning Committee
3 October 2006
Page 12 of 16
Page 13 of 16
Attachment 2
Agenda Item 5.10
Planning Committee
3 October 2006
Globe international -
manufacturing and
Current application for 5 corporate office
warehouse/office and
cafe development and re-
subdivision for 1 new lot
Existing Austexx
Developments.
Approved wine Four buildings, 28 lots.
bottling plant Was 4 large lots prior to
on 3 lots. development.
Subject
Site
16 tenants
proposed
Hawker De
Havilland aircraft
industries complex
Current re-subdivision
applications to create
one extra lot per parcel
Page 14 of 16
Attachment 3
Agenda Item 5.10
Planning Committee
3 October 2006
Subject
Site
Small to
medium
Precinct Yarra Gate Precinct
Corporate Precinct
Page 15 of 16
Agenda Item 5.10
Planning Committee
3 October 2006
FINANCE ATTACHMENT
APPLICATION FOR PLAN NING PERMIT: 20-28 SABRE DRIVE, PORT
MELBOURNE
There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations contained in this report.
Joe Groher
Manager Financial Services
Page 16 of 16
Agenda Item 5.10
Planning Committee
3 October 2006
LEGAL ATTACHMENT
APPLICATION FOR PLAN NING PERMIT: 20-28 SABRE DRIVE, PORT
MELBOURNE
Division 1 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”) sets out the
requirements in relation to applications for permits pursuant to the relevant planning scheme.
In making its decision section 60(1) of the Act requires the Responsible Authority to consider,
amongst other things, all objections and other submissions which it has received, which have not been
withdrawn.
Section 61(1)(b) provides that the Responsible Authority may decide to grant a permit subject to
conditions.
Section 64 of the Act sets out the procedure to be followed by the Responsible Authority in
circumstances where objections are received. The section provides that the Responsible Authority
must give the applicant and each objector a notice in the prescribed form of its decision to grant a
permit. The Responsible Authority must not issue a permit to the applicant until the end of the period
in which an objector may apply to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”) for a
review of the decision or, if an application for review is made, until the application is determined by
the VCAT or withdrawn.
The Act and the regulations made under the Act prescribe various time limits in which the
Responsible Authority must decide applications for planning permits.
Section 79 of the Act provides that if the Responsible Authority fails to grant a permit within the
prescribed time (60 days) an applicant may appeal to the VCAT.
Kim Wood
Manager Legal Services
