ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST
CATCHWORDS
Section 149A Planning and Environment Act 1987 clause 61.01 Melbourne Planning Scheme
consideration of who is the correct responsible authority interpretation of developments with a gross
floor area exceeding 25,000 square metres
APPLICANT
P1684/2014
P2208/2014
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT
P1684/2014
P2208/2014
OTHER
P1684/2014
P2208/2014
SUBJECT LAND
WHERE HELD
BEFORE
HEARING TYPE
Hearing
DATE OF HEARING
23 February 2015
DATE OF ORDER
10 April 2015
CITATION
ORDER
Parties to proceeding
Declarations
Application P1684/2014
Page 2 of 18
Helen Gibson
Deputy President
APPEARANCES:
Ms Alison Fairley
Page 3 of 18
REASONS
WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?
The permit application was submitted to the Minister for Planning as the
responsible authority.1 The Minister decided to grant a permit. Four
applications for review were lodged under section 82 of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987 to review this decision. This proceeding is
application P1684/2014 and the applicants for review are Carol and Alan
Schwartz (the Schwartzs), Cbus Property and PT Limited (Cbus), Hosier
Inc and Melbourne City Council (the council).
This submission is made on the basis that the council is the responsible
authority for considering and determining developments where the gross
floor area does not exceed 25,000 square metres. The Minister for Planning
is the responsible authority for considering and determining applications for
developments with a gross floor area exceeding 25,000 square metres. 2
In the present case, the total gross floor area of the new development has
been calculated by the applicant to be 26,007 square metres. This
calculation includes the floor area of the Forum Theatre, which is
approximately 6,387 square metres. The council says that while the land
subject to the application includes both the Forum Theatre and 25 Russell
Street, Melbourne, the development requiring planning permission relates
to the demolition of the existing building at 25 Russell Street, the
construction of a new building (which overhangs the existing Forum
Theatre building) and the construction of external alterations to the Forum
Theatre. The council says that the floor area of the existing Forum Theatre
building should not be included in the calculation of the gross floor area of
the development being applied for. The gross floor area of the development
is therefore considered to be 19,620 square metres, which is below the
threshold stipulated by the schedule to clause 61.01 of the Melbourne
Planning Scheme. On this basis, the council says that the Minister for
Planning is not the responsible authority.
1
2
Page 4 of 18
In order to resolve this question of jurisdictional fact, the council has lodged
an application for declarations under section 149A of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987 in which it seeks the following declarations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The schedule to clause 61.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme sets out
who is the responsible authority for administering and enforcing this
scheme.
10
Page 5 of 18
11
12
13
14
Applications under the Capital City Zone (CCZ1), the Design and
Development Overlay (DDO1, DDO2 and DDO4), clause 52.05
(advertising signs) and clause 52.34 (bicycle facilities) are all exempt from
third party notice and review rights.
15
Under the Heritage Overlay in respect of the MTC land at 25 Russell Street,
the application is not exempt from third party notice and review rights. It is
therefore under the Heritage Overlay provisions that the applications for
review in application P1684/2014 have been made.
16
However, with respect to the Forum Theatre land at 150 162 Flinders
Street, no permit is required under the planning scheme pursuant to clause
43.01-2 because it is a heritage place which is included on the Victorian
Heritage Register.
Page 6 of 18
17
ii.
iii.
1.
2.
2.
3.
4.
18
For 150 160 Flinders Street, the following matters do not require a
planning permit:
19
A single application for permit was made to the Minister for Planning on 20
December 2013 (application No 2013/009973). The application is for land
Page 7 of 18
20
The application does not articulate the specific permissions required under
the planning scheme.
21
22
The Bates Smart plans relate to Hotel Forum, a proposed 32 storey, 107
metre high building at 25 Russell Street which would contain a residential
hotel, as well as retail/commercial, penthouse apartments and office uses.
This building is proposed to cantilever some 3.5 metres into the airspace of
the Forum Theatre.
23
24
The Bates Smart Design Report and plans include a calculation of total
gross floor area, of 26,007 square metres. This calculation consists of the
gross floor area of 19,620 square metres for the proposed building at 25
Russell Street, and 6,387 square metres of existing gross floor area for the
Forum Theatre site.
This description of the street address appears to be wrong. It should be 19 25 Russell Street. However
there is a constant discrepancy in the description of the street address in documents relating to the permit
application and VCAT proceedings. I do not consider that anything turns on this discrepancy. There is no
dispute that the site is the land occupied by the former Melbourne Theatre Company building situated
between the Forum Theatre to the east and Cavendish House on the corner of Flinders Lane and Russell
Street to the west. In this decision I will continue to refer to this land as 25 Russell Street, Melbourne.
4
Wind, acoustics, waste management, traffic and transport, ESD management plan, economic impact
assessment, boundary re-establishment and site analysis survey, and building regulations compliance
report.
VCAT Reference Nos. P1684/2014 & P2208/2014
Page 8 of 18
25
Whilst the name of the applicant and the owner of the land is given in the
permit application as Forum Theatre Holdings Pty Ltd, in fact the two
parcels of land are in different ownerships. The land at 25 Russell Street is
owned by Forum Theatre Holdings Pty Ltd whilst the Forum Theatre at 150
162 Flinders Street is owned by Forum Theatre Investments Pty Ltd.
26
On 23 June 2015, Heritage Victoria issued a permit for 150 162 Flinders
Street in relation to the external restoration and conservation works,
reinstatement of lighting and roof top signage to its 1929 appearance and
cantilevering of a structure over the northern boundary, in accordance with
specified documents and subject to conditions.
27
28
29
30
Condition 5 of the NOD requires the owner of the land to enter a section
173 agreement to require, inter alia:
A defined time frame and cost for the external restoration of the
Forum Theatre at 150 162 Flinders Street, Melbourne.5
It is interesting to note in the context of the present dispute that condition 5 requires the owner of the
land to enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority being the City of Melbourne pursuant to
section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This description of the responsible authority
being the City of Melbourne is repeated in condition 6. However, I have placed no weight on this
description of the responsible authority in the NOD in determining who is the lawful responsible
VCAT Reference Nos. P1684/2014 & P2208/2014
Page 9 of 18
31
There is nothing in the NOD which grants permission for the external
refurbishment works to the faade of the Forum Theatre required pursuant
to DDO2.
32
33
Page 10 of 18
34
35
36
37
38
11
12
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Page 11 of 18
39
40
41
The council submits that the permit applicant should not count the existing
ground and basement floor area of the Forum Theatre in the assessment of
whether its proposal is properly described as developments with a gross
floor area exceeding 25,000 square metres. Instead, the existing ground
and basement floor area of the Forum Theatre should be excluded from the
calculation of gross floor area of the proposal which is the subject of the
application.
42
43
The council submits that the phrase developments with a gross floor area
exceeding 25,000 square metres requires a different exercise from simply
counting up all of the floor area of the existing buildings on the land listed
in the permit application. Instead, it requires a calculation of the total floor
area which is to be constructed or to which works are to be carried out.
44
The Schwartzs say that the phrase developments with a gross floor area
exceeding 25,000 square metres is concerned with the size of
developments in the sense of projects. However one interprets clause
61.01, the clause is not concerned with wholly different or separate
development proposals, the cumulative floor area of which, when added
together, exceed 25,000 square metres. Clause 61.01 is concerned with
development proposals which, viewed objectively, are an integrated whole.
Separate development proposals are not rendered integrated because the
applicant has chosen to include them in the same permit application.
45
Page 12 of 18
The Minister for Planning takes a similar approach to the permit applicant
to the interpretation of the phrase developments with a gross floor area
exceeding 25,000 square metres. He says that the two components of the
application should not be disaggregated because the works proposed are
part of a co-ordinated program of works.
47
48
49
50
The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for considering and
determining applications. If it was intended that the Minister was to be the
responsible authority for considering and determining applications in
relation to development as defined in the Act, the clause would read: The
Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for considering and
determining applications in relation to development with a gross floor area
exceeding 25,000 square metres.
51
52
Page 13 of 18
The Minister for Planning is not only the responsible authority for
considering and determining applications for anything requiring a permit
under the planning scheme, but also for approving matters required by the
scheme to be done to the satisfaction of the responsible authority in relation
to each of the four categories set out in this part of clause 2.0 of the
schedule to clause 61.01.
54
55
56
Page 14 of 18
In my view, the context of the term developments with a gross floor area
exceeding 25,000 square metres requires the word developments (plural)
to be given its ordinary and colloquial meaning of projects. The projects
will need to involve buildings because only buildings can have a gross floor
area. But where projects involving buildings with a gross floor area
exceeding 25,000 square metres are concerned, the Minister for Planning is
the responsible authority for both considering and determining any
applications under the planning scheme and for approving any matters
required by the scheme to be done to the satisfaction of the responsible
authority in relation to such projects. Such applications may involve
development as defined in the Act or use or other matters for which a
permit is required or where something must be done to the satisfaction of
the responsible authority. The Minister is the responsible authority for all
such matters in relation to projects involving new buildings or existing
buildings with gross floor area exceeding 25,000 square metres.
58
59
The next issue to determine is whether the permit application involves one
development or project, or two. Should the two components of the
application relating to the new Forum Hotel proposal and the refurbishment
of the Forum Theatre be disaggregated for the purpose of determining the
responsible authority?
60
I agree with the permit applicant that clause 2.0 of the schedule to clause
61.01 does not require there to be a development of a gross floor area
exceeding 25,000 square metres. If that were the intention, the preposition
with would be replaced with the preposition of or the word
comprising or the phrase consisting of. Rather, clause 2.0 requires
there to be an application in relation to a development with a gross floor
area exceeding 25,000 square metres. It does not require something
positive to be done to the floor area itself.
Page 15 of 18
61
However, I disagree with the permit applicant that because the permit
application is for a development on both sites in conjunction with one
another, the sites ought not be disaggregated.
62
It was said on behalf of the permit applicant that one is the purchase price
for the other. It was submitted that the most important connection between
the existing Forum Theatre and the proposed building is the net community
benefit that will be achieved by the overall proposal, a critical component of
which is the proposed refurbishment of the Forum Theatre. The
refurbishment of the Forum Theatre is made possible by the proposed hotel
building: Its refurbishment is therefore not offered without the proposed
building.
63
64
Whether the community benefit that will flow from the refurbishment of the
Forum Theatre is a sufficient price to pay for granting a permit that
allows a development of 107 metres to exceed the discretionary height limit
of 40 metres by 67 metres is a matter that will need to be considered in the
context of deciding whether or not a permit should be granted. It is not a
matter that affects the jurisdictional issue of who is the correct responsible
authority to make this decision.
65
In the present case, although a single permit application has been made for
the new hotel building and refurbishment of the Forum Theatre, there is no
material connection between the works proposed for the Forum Theatre and
the works to be carried out to construct the hotel building. The existing
MTC building and the Forum Theatre building are on two separate parcels
of land, with separate owners. The proposed demolition of the MTC
building does not have any effect upon the structure of the Forum Theatre
building. The proposed hotel development is not physically nor
functionally connected to or integrated with the Forum Theatre building.
All the supporting material for the hotel building assesses it without any
linkage to the Forum Theatre.
66
The NOD relates only to the proposed hotel building and demolition of the
existing MTC building. It does not authorise any of the works for which a
permit is required under DDO2 in respect of the Forum Theatre
refurbishment works. The NOD relates only to that part of 150 162
Flinders Street that will be included in the title for the land on which the
hotel building stands, namely the air space accommodating the cantilevered
section of the hotel building.
67
I find that the two aspects of the permit application, namely the new hotel
building and demolition of the MTC building, and the refurbishment works
to the Forum Theatre are two separate developments or projects. The only
connection between the two is that one is stated to be the price for the
other. However, in a planning sense, this does not make the two projects an
Page 16 of 18
CONCLUSION
69
70
71
72
73
13
Sweetvale Pty Ltd & Ors v Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal & Ors [2003] VSCA 83
Page 17 of 18
There was no debate at the hearing about the consequences of a finding that
the Minister was not the responsible authority. The fact that the Minister
lacked jurisdiction to make a decision does not deprive the Tribunal of
jurisdiction to consider an application for review having regard to the
provisions of section 4(2)(b) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal Act 1998. However, it would not be appropriate to continue with
hearing the merits of the application for review in application P1684/2014
in the absence of its consideration by the proper responsible authority,
namely the Melbourne City Council.
75
The difficulty with striking out the application for review on the basis that it
is misconceived is that the application is made by objectors under section
82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. To strike out their
applications for review would still leave the NOD unresolved albeit there
would be a declaration about its validity and no permit could issue.
76
Helen Gibson
Deputy President
Page 18 of 18