Home / m8_vcat_


Notable VCAT orders protective of the Beaumaris environment



Click on the Menu of Main Pages here, or on a blue hyperlink of interest.


*1 NAUTILUS STREET: VCAT again refused an appeal by the same developer here it refused in 2013. The appeal was opposed by Bayside City Council and BCS Inc. A developer’s lot is not always a happy one!

* 1 NAUTILUS STREET: VCAT refused the developer’s appeal for a permit for a 3-dwelling development opposed by Bayside City Council and BCS Inc.
*24 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 car spaces.




9 TOWERS STREET: VCAT supported Council’s refusal, in order to protect landscape and local character.



3 JOHN STREET: VCAT did not support the Council’s refusal, but modified the application by applying conditions.

Decision noted for comments reinforcing that a prevailing feature of neighbourhood character is spaciouness between buildings, and extensive mature vegetation within the front setback.  VCAT member’s decision required setback from at least one boundary to provide a visual break from the street and possible planting of canopy trees. VCAT also required (see Line 30) that a tandem driveway be replaced with a single driveway and the removal of pedestrian paths, to provide more space for landscaping.



14 RESERVE ROAD: VCAT did not support the Council’s refusal, but modified the application by applying conditions.

The permit applicant was required to delete one of four dwellings to demonstrate separation between the dwellings particularly at first floor and an increase in on site landscaping whilst continuing to provide useful and accessible open space for each of the dwellings.  VCAT also required the retention of native vegetation on the rear boundary.



66 RESERVE ROAD: VCAT supported Council’s refusal, as design fails to achieve balance with neighbourhood vegetated landscape.

Since this VCAT decision, the lot has been developed with a maximum of 2 dwellings, rather than the 3-dwelling proposal rejected by this order. The result has been noticeably more space for trees and garden, consistent with its long frontage to Hardinge Street.




26 DEAUVILLE STREET: VCAT supported Council’s refusal for two 2-storey dwellings, to retain garden and landscape character.



7 TIBBLES STREET: VCAT rejected a proposal to alter existing extended building to create two buildings. See the 2001 refusal below.


443 BEACH ROAD: VCAT supported Council’s refusal of the development. The VCAT member concluded his judgement saying that it was “an intensity of development unsuited to the site and the neighbourhood”.



7 TIBBLES STREET: VCAT supported Council’s refusal, as proposed extra 2-storey dwelling in front would over-develop the site.

In the wider Bayside scene, it is worth noting below:

  The 2013 Victorian Supreme Court case on the relevance of the number of objectors to VCAT’s consideration of
  a matter before it.
  VCAT’s 2010 order refusing a permit for replacement of Kyat’s Hotel, Brighton, on the grounds of a significant
  loss of community identity that would result,
  and two earlier superior court judgements that
  • related to issues close to Beaumaris,
  • well preceded VCAT, and
  • had considerable influence on attitudes to municipal and government decision-making on environmental matters in Victoria.

*The Queen versus the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Sandringham:
How street trees must 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 years later.

This case was one of the last uses in Victoria of the prerogative writ of mandamus before Victoria abolished it in 1978, although it still exists for Commonwealth matters by virtue of Section 75(v) of the Australian Constitution.

*The 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 by massive damage to the pipeline in 2008 when a ship’s anchor severed it, and the Federal Court actions that ensued.

To view news for other years, go to Records.