Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

The King David School v Stonnington CC & Ors.

País/Territorio
Australia
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte inferior
Fecha
Mar 29, 2011
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Sede de la corte
Melbourne
Juez
Dwyer
Naylor.
Número de referencia
[2011] VCAT 520
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Cuestiones jurídicas, Tierra y suelos
Palabra clave
Manejo de tierras
Resumen
This case concerned an application made by the King David School (the School) to amend conditions on its planning permit relating to the use of its recently developed Armadale campus (the Site). The application was under s 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act) and sought to amend conditions relating to the ‘use’ of the campus. There was a concern in this case that the s 87A process was being used as a kind of ‘repeat appeal’ to obtain more favourable conditions than those originally granted, particularly as the s 87A application had only been lodged three weeks after the grant of the initial permit. The Tribunal found that s 87A should not be used as a ‘repeat appeal’: "s 87A should not be used as a de facto review of the original Tribunal decision in order to seek a more favourable outcome, or as an attempt to ‘win back’ development aspirations that were not supported in the original Tribunal decision". The Tribunal indicated that when deciding whether section 87A was being used in this way, it is relevant to consider: whether the process under s 87A is being used to seek to change key permit conditions which were central to the decision to issue the permit; and whether such substantive changes are being sought shortly after the initial permit had been granted. After examining the nature of the School’s proposed amendments, the Tribunal decided to allow two of the requested amendments relating to use of the land in ordinary school hours, as these were found to be ‘not without ambiguity’ and there was ‘no material detriment’ in doing so. However, in relation to the amendments sought to the two other conditions, relating to use of the school outside of ordinary school hours, the Tribunal found the proposed changes to be ‘substantive in nature’ and would have a material impact on objectors. The application to amend the latter two conditions was therefore refused.
Texto completo
COU-156678.pdf
Página web
www.austlii.edu.au