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 DwyerNaylor. 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 Schools 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