Ho v Greater Dandenong City Council

In the case of Ho v Greater Dandenong City Council, the applicant, Mr Ho, contested the validity of a local law enacted by the Greater Dandenong City Council, which prohibited the keeping of livestock on land that is less than half a hectare in size. The dispute reached the Victorian Supreme Court, where the central issue was the legality of the local law in light of the planning scheme and the broader statutory powers of the council.

The court was required to determine whether the local law was inconsistent with the planning scheme and whether it exceeded the council's statutory powers. Additionally, the court had to interpret the meaning of ‘ancillary’ uses or activities in the context of the local law and the planning scheme, and whether the local law and the planning scheme together operated as cumulative controls. The relevant sections of the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) that were considered included sections 3C, 3E, 3F, and 111.

The court examined the statutory framework and found that the local law did not exceed the council's power to make local laws regulating the keeping of animals. It also held that the local law was not inconsistent with the planning scheme, as the planning scheme permitted ancillary uses or activities, which included the keeping of livestock. The court further determined that the planning scheme and the local law did not operate as cumulative controls. Consequently, the local law was deemed valid and enforceable.

The court subsequently dismissed the application, upholding the validity of the local law enacted by the Greater Dandenong City Council. No further orders were made as the court found in favour of the council.