Glossop Town Planning provides expert evidence and advocacy throughout the planning system. We regularly appear at VCAT and Planning Panels Victoria representing private and public sector clients. With hundreds of appearances under our belt, our firm are acknowledged industry experts in evidence and advocacy matters.
Hew Gerrard, Senior Associate, leads Glossop’s VCAT advocacy practice He has extensive experience appearing before VCAT as an advocate.
Much to our luck, Hew reviews the key VCAT decisions n the Land and Environment Division each month so that you don’t have to.
A quiet month for the Tribunal in April with just the 31 planning decisions published. Of these decisions, Bridgford v Stonnington CC [2026] VCAT 199 was the first (at least as far I’m aware) to test the review rights available to objectors under the new Clause 55 provisions.
In short, Council issued an NOD for the construction of multiple dwellings and a reduction in car parking. An objector sought review on confined grounds being related to Standard B5-5 (Waste and recycling) and the reduction in car parking sought. The permit applicant sought to have the application dismissed on the basis the objector did not have standing to review the buildings and works permission and that due to the recent changes made to Clause 52.06 a car parking reduction was no longer required.
The Tribunal stated:
12. The planning scheme provides:
An application under clause 32.08-7 is exempt from the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act if all the applicable standards under clause 55.02, 55.04-1, 55.04-2, 55.04-3, 55.04-4 and 55.05-2 are met.
13. The respondent’s application is made under clause 32.08-7. The respondent contends all of the applicable standards under those six clauses are met. The Council found all the applicable standards were met. The applicant does not dispute that the applicable standards are not met.
14. The standard relied on by the applicant is not one of the applicable standards.
15. Consequently, the respondent’s application in respect of the buildings and works permission is exempt from the review rights under section 82(1) and the applicant does not have standing to review that permission.
…
28. The applicant’s car parking grounds cannot be relied on in any hearing of the application and the Tribunal could not consider them.
The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the application on the grounds that it was misconceived or lacking in substance.
From a timeline perspective, the NOD was issued by Council on 10 December 2025, the objector lodged their appeal on 6 January 2026, and the Tribunal’s Order was dated 24 March 2026.
Two other decisions of interest last month:
Mentone Bayside Corporation Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2026] VCAT 192, in which John Glossop gave town planning evidence,concerned a s72 amendment to a permit granted in 2018 for the redevelopment of the former Mentone Hotel. Notably a ground floor food and drink tenancy was permitted and this was now sought to be converted into two apartments. In short, the permit applicant argued that the food and drink premises has proven economically unviable. Council and respondents opposed the amendment on the basis it undid the agreement based on which the original permit was granted and general opposition to the loss of the approved food and drink premises.
On the question of the agreement the Tribunal found:
99. The amendment application is contrary to the mediated outcome because it seeks to win back Mentone Bayside’s foregone aspirations in that outcome and because it is a substantive change.
100. However, the amendment application should not be refused for those reasons alone. In balancing that finding against other relevant principles, the reasons for the amendment and the lapse of time since the mediated outcome do not militate against the grant of the amendment. This means the proposal (in the amendment application) should be determined on its merits.
In terms of the merits, Council in part submitted:
125. … Council submits that having regard to section 60(1)(f) of the Act the Permit Amendment Application will give rise to unacceptable social impacts as a result of the loss of the licensed food and drink premises which provided a direct link to the site’s former land use, its social heritage significance and its demonstrated importance as demonstrated through the significant number of objections received and the 10 years of work undertaken by the ‘Save the Edgy’ Group and other residents groups that have campaigned for the site to be retained as a working hotel open to the public.
The Tribunal did not accept this argument stating:
129. First, there is no loss in the sense that the food and drink premises does not exist. The loss is only a potential loss.
130. Second, the loss is not of the Mentone Hotel. When the Mentone Hotel was operating it had a social effect. The loss of the Mentone Hotel occurred more than a decade ago. Refusing the amendment application will not preserve a beneficial social effect that local people may have characterised as significant. The permit allows a wide variety of businesses that meet the definition of a food and drink premises. A business could lawfully establish in Lot G02 as a food and drink premises that many local people might regard as non-beneficial, in the sense of not maintaining a social effect of the Mentone Hotel.
131. Third, the potential loss is not significant in that it is not supported by any control or policy in the planning scheme for provision of a food and drink premises at the former hotel.
132. Fourth, the Council received 94 objections to the amendment application. Having regard to the content of the objections, there is therefore a body of people who oppose the loss and are disappointed to lose a place for social interaction (if I might summarise the concerns as expressed by Mr Martin). The raw number of objections does not amount to something of significance. The loss does not rise to the level of a significance effect when other food and drink premises exist or could reasonably establish in the wider neighbourhood.
133. Fifth, I give some weight to the fact that the statement of significance in the register does not recognise the social significance of the former hotel.
Kouiroukidis v Banyule CC [2006] VCAT 142 concerned an application to undertake works to an existing dwelling and remove vegetation notably a 22m tall by 17m wide Cedar tree. There was general agreement that there was no arboricultural reason to remove this tree, rather its removal was sought on the basis that its location unreasonably limited the potential extension of the dwelling.
Within the VPO3 that applies a vegetation protection objective is To ensure that prior to removal of tall trees all alternatives are considered, including redesign of proposed buildings and associated works with a subsequent decision guideline being All alternatives for the design of buildings and works that would avoid the need for vegetation removal, destruction or lopping have been considered.
In refusing the application, the Tribunal found:
59. The applicant submits the location of tree 18 within the rear yard inclusive of its Nominal Root Zone (‘NRZ’) and Structural Root Zone (‘SRZ’) impose a siting constraint on the two storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. In support of the submission regarding the constraint imposed by tree 18, the applicant provided plans at the hearing that they say show the likely impact on the dwelling addition if tree 18 was retained. The plan showed a potential development area to the north of the existing dwelling, however it did not provide any detail with respect to the design options that were considered.
60. The dwelling additions seeks to construct a kitchen, meals and alfresco area over the area occupied by tree 18. The evidence from Ms May states that whilst tree 18 has a high arboricultural values its location within the centre of the backyard combined with its branching structure, large NRZ and restrictions imposed by the HO and easements, severely limits the potential for the design of a family home of modern-day standards. Similarly, it was Mr Patricks evidence the location of tree 18 limits the opportunity for an extension of the dwelling.
61. Whilst tree 18 imposes a constraint on possible development, I am not persuaded the constraint results in the conclusion that removal of the tree is the only outcome. In circumstances when a tree imposes a constraint, the relevant vegetation protection objective and decision guidelines require demonstration that alternative options to tree removal have been explored.
62. It may be that a design response that retains tree 18 may have a lesser area, however that does not mean the existing dwelling cannot be extended. An acceptable demonstration that a family home of modern-day standards could not be built including the options considered and why the outcomes are unacceptable was not provided. The proposed design response in the absence of a demonstration that alternative options have been considered is of limited assistance having regard to the relevant provisions of the planning scheme and decision guideline.
63. It is not for the Tribunal to design the provision of accommodation that meets the needs of the applicant. However, in the absence of the applicant being able to acceptably demonstrate that alternative options to the removal of tree 18 have been explored, I have not been persuaded the proposal is acceptable. Therefore, in the context of the guidance in the planning scheme that seeks to achieve site responsive design that retains trees, I am not persuaded an acceptable attempt has been made to explore alternative design options that would enable retention of tree 18…
As always, if Glossop Town Planning can be of any assistance with any VCAT matters, please contact either Hew (advocacy) or John (expert evidence) to discuss.