Notable VCAT orders protective of the
Click on the Menu of Main Pages here, or on a blue hyperlink of interest.
NAUTILUS STREET: VCAT again refused
an appealby the same developer here it refused
The appeal was opposed by Bayside City Council and BCS
Inc. A developer’s lot
is not always a happy one!
NAUTILUS STREET: VCAT refused
the developer’s appeal for a permit for a 3-dwelling
development opposed by Bayside City Council and BCS
RESERVE ROAD: VCAT supported
Council’s refusal of a permit for 3 two-storey
dwellings. See order.
|*||431-432 BEACH ROAD: VCAT supported|
Council’s refusal of a permit for 14 dwellings with 31
9 TOWERS STREET: VCAT supported
Decision noted for comments
member’s decision required setback from at least
The permit applicant was
Since this VCAT decision, the lot has been
In the wider The 2013 Victorian Supreme Court case on the relevance of the number of objectors to VCAT’s 2010 order refusing a permit for replacement
Victorian Supreme Court case on the relevance
of the number of objectors to VCAT’s
2010 order refusing a permit for replacement
Queen versus the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens
treesmust not be felled improperly. A
landmark 1973 Victorian Supreme Court case led to a
row of some 20 tall Mahogany Gums (Eucalyptus
botryoides) in Linacre
Road, Hampton, that the Council resolved to
fell in 1972 being allowed to survive in sound order
until their age justified their removal some 35
This case was one of the last uses in Victoria of
75(v) of the Australian Constitution.
public protest over damage caused by
digging to build a Bay pipeline route:
How the right of citizens to use Port Phillip
foreshore Crown land reserves for purposes expressly
legislated by Parliament has a higher priority than
a Government’s mere right to use it for ad hoc expedient
aims that it happens to have at the time.
Warnings given in that 1973 protest were vindicated
news for other years, go to Records.