There are seven key principles that guide Departmental responses to a request for an extension of time of a planning permit. As outlined below, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recently applied these principles in Hotel Windsor Holdings Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (Red Dot)  VCAT 993. The proponent of the redevelopment of the Hotel Windsor was refused a planning permit extension beyond 10 January 2015. The permit allows part demolition of the existing hotel and construction of a new 26 storey tower and north wing extension. If construction is not commenced by 10 January 2015, the developer will have to apply for another permit in circumstances where there have been changes to height controls in the Scheme. This issue may arise for you or your agency if there has been, or will be, a significant change in planning policy.
The Tribunal in Hotel Windsor considered an application to review the failure by the Minister for Planning to grant an extension of time. The Minister opposed the extension and submitted that the Tribunal should refuse the Hotel's application for a range of reasons. One reason was that there had been a change in the planning policy since the permit was last extended. The recent change to the planning controls specifically targeting the Bourke Hill precinct and the need to protect its low scale have resulted in the introduction of a mandatory height limit of 23 metres (well below the 93 metre development allowed by the permit). This weighed against a decision to extend the permit and shifted the balance of planning considerations in favour of protection of Bourke Hill as a low scale precinct.
The Tribunal considered and applied the long-standing principles in Kantor v Murrindindi Shire Council (1997) 18 AATR 285 (Kantor principles). The Tribunal noted that the implications for redevelopment of the Hotel Windsor were significant. The Kantor principles are:
- whether there has been a change in planning policy;
- whether the landowner is seeking to warehouse the permit;
- intervening circumstances which bear on the grant or refusal of the extension requests;
- the total elapsed time;
- whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate;
- the economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit; and
- the probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made.
The Kantor principles, while not definitive or exclusive, have been applied by the Tribunal consistently including recently in the case of Naroghid Wind Farm Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning  VCAT 1203 (Naroghid). In Naroghid, the change in planning policy was the introduction of the 2 kilometre rule. This new rule requires wind farm proponents to obtain written consent from landowners within a 2 kilometre radius of a proposed turbine. In Hotel Windsor, the change in planning policy specifically targeted the Bourke Hill precinct and the need to protect its low scale. Balanced against the countervailing Kantor principles including no evidence of warehousing, intervening circumstances, the adequacy of the time limit and the implications of not granting an extension, the Deputy President found that the request for an extension of time to commence construction of the redevelopment of Windsor Hotel should be refused.
This decision and the Kantor principles may be relevant to you or your agency. If there has been a change in planning policy, such that a permit may not be granted if it was applied for afresh, then potential requests from developers for extension of the time for the commencement of works are to be expected. Accordingly, the seven Kantor principles are relevant considerations for agencies preparing new or amended planning policies.
If you are in the Victorian Government and would like more information about this area of law, please contact:
T: 8684 0267
Acting Managing Principal Solicitor
T: 8684 0299
Post a Comment