What do you want to do ?
Red Dot Decisions
Red dot decisions are identified by the Planning and Environment Division because they are of significance or interest. They show how the law was applied.
In the days of paper files a ‘red dot’ was placed on the file cover to denote a decision of broader interest. All decisions are now digital but the ‘red dot’ designation remains.
Westernport Marina Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC (Red Dot) [2024] VCAT 1041
This decision involves an application for planning permission for buildings and works associated with part of Westernport Marina. The relevant part of Westernport Marina comprises land that has been excavated (the marina basin), land that has been filled and reclaimed, and, land that has been created in the form of a breakwater for the marina basin.
This decision is of interest because in determining whether a CHMP is required to be prepared, this decision considers the concept of ‘significant ground disturbance’ both in terms of the excavated, filled/reclaimed land and the breakwater land, as well as in terms of the proposed works to each area.
Alderman v Hume CC
The decision is of interest because it interprets s.47(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and determines that it does not extend to permit applications for variation of a restrictive covenant over land if the land has been used or developed for more than 2 years before the date of the application.
Cummaudo Asset Pty Ltd v Minister for Water
This decision considered an application for review under Water Act 1989 (Vic) and considers policies, guidelines and tools that may be relevant to determine if a dam is or is likely to be hazardous.
Viva Energy Australia v Greater Geelong City Council
This decision discusses the complexity of permit application reviews where third party notice and review exemptions are in effect only for some of the permissions sought. A Supreme Court appeal of this VCAT decision was later dismissed.
Myers v Southern Grampians Shire Council
The case is significant because it addresses:
- the limits of VCAT's jurisdiction in reviewing permit applications
- the relevance of third party exemptions to what VCAT can consider.
VCAT's decision was appealed, but dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Wegg Pty Ltd v Melton City Council
This case explores whether the characterisation of a high impact activity in an application for a statutory authorisation is different from the characterisation of a high impact activity in an approved cultural heritage management plan. The case discusses whether the difference is relevant for the purposes of section 52(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic).
Colinx Nominees Pty Ltd v Frankston City Council
This red dot decision delves into whether verandahs and balconies form part of the total floor area of a rooming house under clause 52.23 of planning schemes.
Koneska v Greater Geelong City Council
If a planning scheme amendment to exempt a permit application from review rights is approved after the review application is lodged, should the application be dismissed as misconceived?
Ling v Whitehorse City Council
This decision is of interest as it interprets the correct construction and meaning of Standard B21 in clause 55.04-5 – Overshadowing open space objective of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.
Box v Stonnington City Council
The red dot decision confirms and provides reasons for VCAT’s view that a person is not a party to the proceeding when:
- they objected to the grant of a planning permit
- lodged a statement of grounds intending to participate in a review proceeding under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd v Greater Bendigo City Council
Whether a notice of decision to grant a permit issued under section 64 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) is a statutory authorisation for the purposes of section 52 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic).
Eddy v Yarra City Council
Whether an application for review under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) should be dismissed or struck out as misconceived if an amendment to the relevant planning scheme is approved and planning permission is no longer required before the application for review is lodged and where no transitional provisions apply.