JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 August 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 August 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dickson v Yarra Ranges Council
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 491

---

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Powers, functions and duties of councils generally and for land use planning — Council meetings — Strategic planning — Defendant council considering draft Urban Design Framework for Monbulk town centre — Whether council meeting its community engagement obligations in relation to public exhibition of draft Urban Design Framework — Council meeting consultation obligations in relation to exhibition of draft Urban Design Framework — Whether council meetings open to the public — Council meetings open to the public at all relevant times — Standing of plaintiff — Principles concerning standing — Whether plaintiff has a special interest in the subject matter of the proceeding — Plaintiff has no standing — Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), Pt IIA — Local Government Act 2020 (Vic), ss 8, 9, 10, Pt 3, Divs 1–2, ss 60, 61, 66 — Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), Pt 3 —Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.

HUMAN RIGHTS — Whether public authority acted incompatibly with human rights — Public authority did not act incompatibly with human rights — Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), ss 7(2), 13(a), 18(1), 38(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr EA Gisonda	Macquarie Local Government Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Local government — relevant legislation.................................................................................. 4
Monbulk Township Draft Urban Design Framework............................................................. 8
Does Mr Dickson have standing?............................................................................................. 13
Consideration..................................................................................................................... 14

To what extent is the Council obliged to engage with the community in relation to the UDF?.............................................................................................................................................. 17
Local Government Act...................................................................................................... 17
Planning Act....................................................................................................................... 20
Charter................................................................................................................................. 21
Common law...................................................................................................................... 23

What community engagement has the Council undertaken in relation to the UDF?...... 24
Has the Council met its community engagement obligations in relation to the UDF?.... 34
What are the Council’s obligations to open its meetings to the public?............................. 39
Is the Council meeting its obligation to open its meetings to the public?.......................... 48
Meetings between 31 January and 11 April 2023.......................................................... 50
Were the meetings between 26 April and 27 June 2023 open to the public?............ 55
Filming Council meetings................................................................................................ 57
Registration requirements at Council meetings............................................................ 58

Should the Court answer the additional questions?.............................................................. 60
Disposition................................................................................................................................... 61

HER HONOUR:

The municipal district of Yarra Ranges lies in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. It covers parts of the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges, including the locality of Monbulk.

While he does not live in the municipality, Darren Dickson identifies as a member of the Yarra Ranges community. He works within the community, and spends time with friends and family there almost every day. In particular, he cares for his mother, who is a resident…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dickson v Yarra Ranges Council

Details

AGLC: Dickson v Yarra Ranges Council [2023] VSC 491
Case: [2023] VSC 491
Decision Date: 18 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Dickson v Yarra Ranges Council involved a challenge by the plaintiff, Dickson, to the process followed by the defendant council in considering a draft Urban Design Framework for the town centre of Monbulk. The dispute centred on whether the council had fulfilled its obligations under the law to engage with the community during the public exhibition of the draft framework. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the council had met its community engagement obligations, and whether it had complied with its consultation obligations in relation to the exhibition of the draft framework. Additionally, the court considered whether the meetings of the council, which were crucial to the decision-making process, were open to the public, as required by law. Another key issue was the standing of the plaintiff to bring the proceedings, specifically whether Dickson had a special interest in the subject matter of the proceeding.

In its decision, the court found that the council had indeed met its community engagement and consultation obligations, as the meetings were open to the public at all relevant times. The court also concluded that Dickson did not have standing to bring the proceedings because he did not have a special interest in the subject matter. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including the Constitution Act 1975, the Local Government Act 2020, and the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as well as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, and found that the council had not acted incompatibly with human rights. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's application be dismissed, and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders