Anderson v Stonnington City Council

In the matter of Anderson v Stonnington City Council, the dispute involved the legality of ongoing building works carried out by the appellant, Anderson, under building permits issued prior to the introduction of a heritage overlay control. The case was determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria, following an appeal from a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the building works, which were initiated under permits granted before the heritage overlay control was enacted, constituted an accrued right. This in turn affected whether these works could continue without a planning permit. The court was required to consider statutory provisions, including sections 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, section 6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, section 28(2)(e) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984, and clause 72.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The court ruled that the ongoing works did not constitute an accrued right and therefore required a planning permit to continue. The tribunal had correctly interpreted the relevant legislation, which required any works that would have required a planning permit under the heritage overlay to cease if such a permit was not obtained. The court found that the tribunal's interpretation was consistent with the statutory provisions and the planning scheme. The appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal's decision was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, with the tribunal's decision upheld, and that the ongoing building works required a planning permit to continue. The council was entitled to enforce the heritage overlay control, and Anderson was required to cease the works unless and until a permit was obtained.