The Law Handbook 2024

1022 Section 11: Rights, activism and fair treatment at work ResCode The Residential Development Standards (‘ ResCode ’) provide a range of relevant con­ siderations for urban planning matters, particularly about streetscapes and neighbourhood character. Note that there is no single ResCode text. Its provisions are incorporated into a range of planning laws, including clauses 54–56 of the VPPs, amendments to land-use zones. For more information about the ResCode, see www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/ guides/all-guides/residential-development. Considerations: VCAT reviewing a planning permit Section 84B of the PE Act sets out a detailed range of matters that VCAT must take into account or have regard to when determining an application for review under the PE Act. VCAT must: take into account: • any matter which the person or body in respect of whose decision the application for review is made properly took account of in making its decision or was required to take account of in making its decision • any relevant planning scheme; • (if appropriate) the approved strategy plan under Part 3A, 3C or 3D of the PE Act • any relevant environment reference standard or order made by the Governor in Council under section 156 of the EP Act • (If appropriate) the extent to which persons residing or owning land in the vicinity of the land which is the subject of the application for review were able to and in fact did participate in the procedures required to be followed under this Act before the responsible authority could make a decision in respect of the application for a permit; • any other matter which the Tribunal is required by the provisions of the PE Act or any other Act to take account of in determining the application for review; have regard to: • any matter which the person or body in respect of whose decision the application for review is made properly had regard to in making its decision or was required to have regard to in making its decision; • the objectives of planning in Victoria; • any amendment to a planning scheme which has been adopted by the planning authority but not, as at the date on which the application for review is determined, approved by the Minister or the planning authority; • any agreement made pursuant to section 173 affecting the land the subject of the application for review; • (if appropriate) any amendment to the approved regional strategy plan under Part 3A, 3C or 3D adopted under this Act but not, as at the date on which the application for review is determined, approved by the Minister; and • (if appropriate) the number of objectors in considering whether the use or development may have a significant social effect. If an application for review is of a class that is exempted by a planning scheme wholly or in part from the requirements of the above, then VCAT is not required to take into account or have regard to the exempted matters in determining the application (s 84B(3) PE Act). For objectors The grounds for objecting to a planning permit must address planning considerations. An objector who lodges an objection to the grant of a planning permit does not automatically become a party to any subsequent proceeding in VCAT (Box v Stonnington CC (Red Dot) [2023] VCAT 289 (20 March 2023)). The grounds for objecting to a planning permit must address planning considerations. Detriment to the ‘amenity’ of a neighbourhood may be an important planning consideration. ‘Amenity’ includes any features, benefits or advantages of the local environment that people currently enjoy. Any effect on views, noise, traffic or the area’s general atmosphere is relevant. The social and economic impact of a proposed development on the local community is also relevant, but private economic impacts are not. Whether the proposal is consistent with the planning scheme or orderly planning in the area is an important consideration. Subjective concerns are not legitimate social effects. Widely held views and fears may be relevant, whether regarded as legitimate or not, because of the effects on lifestyle that living under fear might have. A planning case illustrating loss of amenity that