By Gabriella Vukman
During a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing on the 29 October, the planning proposal for a new retail business in Sassafras was remitted to council to be re-evaluated under the premise that the original plan contained “material mis-statement or concealment of fact.”
Maintaining that the construction of the new business would involve the use of a crane to lift a tramcar onto the site, the plan application outlined that permission had been obtained to park the crane on a neighbouring property.
The proposed construction was intended for the site at 383 Mt Dandenong Tourist Road.
Despite already approving these plans, Council asked to re-evaluate the planning application after neighbours claimed to have never consented to having a crane parked on their property.
The alternative installation method for the tramcar is via Mount Dandenong Tourist Road which would be significantly more expensive and difficult.
The remittal of these construction plans was supported by the applicant, who maintained that “the original plans were approved using Mr Shane’s property knowing by the Respondent that there was no permission granted.”
“The Respondent intended to amend the plans in the two weeks provided and has clearly backed out of that commitment. I was prepared to move forward in good faith that the Respondents plans would be amended as discussed in the Practice Day Hearing,” they said.
“I would now state that the failure of Yarra Ranges Council to communicate the amendments materially impacted our ability to object to the amendments before the permit was granted and therefore the application was incorrectly granted and as a minimum should be remitted.”
The respondent, Dais Property Group was in strong opposition to this remittal.
“The temporary parking of a crane outside the site to place the tram car on the site, is a construction matter to be dealt with primarily by the Building Regulations 2018 (VIC) and does not require any amendment to the planning permit application or planning permit,” the respondent said.
“There is no reason to remit the permit application to the Responsible Authority under section 51(2) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) and the respondent strongly opposes any remittal.”
The Yarra Ranges Council disagreed with the respondent, maintaining its concerns surrounding the impact of parking the crane on a main road.
Further, according to the council, the “Remittal of the application back to the Council provides the opportunity for the permit applicant to rectify inaccuracies in the application material. Should this not occur, the Council ‘reserves the right to seek cancellation of the permit on the basis that the permit application included a material mis-statement or concealment of fact’.”
Ultimately, the remittal of the permit application to the responsible authority was decided by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
