The applicant's application for review was allowed: the Tribunal set aside the responsible authority's refusal and directed that the planning permit be amended to allow a general medical centre (removing the 'child health' restriction), increase practitioner numbers from three plus two part-time pathologists to four practitioners, reduce operating hours, and retrospectively approve the as-built car park layout, subject to extensive conditions including accessway widening, pedestrian footpath construction, heritage wall assessment, privacy screening, and signage consolidation. The decision confirms that on an application to amend a planning permit under s 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), the correct approach is to focus assessment on the proposed changes and their incremental impacts, not to reassess the entire proposal as if it were a fresh application — following Mondib Group Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley City Council [2021] VSC 722 and Goldfields Richmond Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2025] VCAT 946. The Tribunal also applied Vestey and Ors v Warrnambool CC [2008] VCAT 963 to hold that permit conditions and endorsed plans, not extrinsic application materials or council reports, define the scope of what is permitted. Policy discouraging medical centres in residential areas outside a designated health precinct (Clause 11.03-6L-02) was treated as guidance rather than mandate, and was found to be satisfied on the facts given the site's unusual size, existing permit history, and location within a Specialised Activity Centre.
The full text is available to signed-in members.