Loading

ANOTHER ROOF TOP. A DIFFERENT RESULT.

Author : Miguel Belmar - 05-03-2015

27. In this context, I find the 1.7 metre screens would upset this balance to an unreasonable degree. I make this finding based on the proposed height and width of the entire structure (being the existing car port wall, the additional structure required for the terrace’s floor and the screens above this floor) in combination with its proximity to Ms Tan’s property. (my emphasis)
The decision confirms the principle that every planning case is about its individual facts.

About The Author

Miguel Belmar

Recent Posts

ANOTHER ROOF TOP. A DIFFERENT RESULT.

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Resident’s concerns and scope of discretion

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

VCAT Adjournments……be ready to proceed.

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Installation of Smart Meters not “works”

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

“Standing” considered by VCAT

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Applications for contempt of Tribunal

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Moreland Planning Scheme Amended

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Ancillary Use – The Tests discussed

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Existing Use Rights

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

VCAT and removal of restrictive covenants

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

VCAT’s power to amend planning permits

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Liquor Licensing and harm minimisation

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Tribunal ‘s latest on borrowed light.

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Major Cases List may return

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Cancellation of Licence

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

When to demolish?

Miguel Belmar

Date : 25-03-2015

Loading
ANOTHER ROOF TOP. A DIFFERENT RESULT. | Greens List