STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – appeal from decision of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on questions of law – planning enforcement regime – planning offence - penalty infringement notice – expiation of offence - enforcement proceedings – whether respondent barred by statute from instituting enforcement proceedings after issuing a penalty infringement notice to appellants – whether offence expiated - meaning of ‘in respect of the offence’ - Planning and Environment Act 1987, ss 114, 119, 126, 130 - Infringements Act 2006, ss 32, 33.

ADMINISTRATIVE ESTOPPEL – whether terms of penalty infringement notice preclude respondent from bringing enforcement proceedings – whether terms of penalty infringement notice required by law.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr G Burns	Adams Maguire Sier
For the Respondent	Mr A Finanzio with Ms N Collingwood	Norton Rose

HER HONOUR:

This is an appeal on questions of law arising from a determination and orders of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’). The orders were made by the Tribunal in the Planning and Environment list on 4 February 2010 and relate to the land located at 27 Hartley Road, Wonga Park (‘the land’).

The appeal concerns the proper construction of the enforcement regime established by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘the P&E Act’) and the Infringements Act 2006 (‘the Infringements Act’), and the effect of the terms of a Penalty Infringement Notice (‘PIN’) issued by the respondent to the appellants on 2 October 2009.

The appellants are the registered proprietors of the land. It is located within the rural conservation zone of the Manningham Planning Scheme (‘the Scheme’) and is subject to ‘environment significance’, ‘significant landscape’ and ‘wildfire management’ overlays. The land consists of 6.890 hectares of cleared areas and native bush areas. A dwelling is also situated on the land.

Between April and June 2008, a certain amount of native vegetation was removed or lopped from the land in order to make way for the construction of a swimming pool.[1] The area cleared measured 190 meters in length and 4 to 6 meters in width. On or around 23 July 2008, a meeting took place between the appellant and representatives of the respondent at the Manningham City Council offices. Following the meeting, on 2 October 2008, the respondent issued a PIN to the appellants pursuant to s 130(1) of the P&E Act. The PIN required the payment of a fine but did not stipulate any required additional steps.
[1]Counsel for the appellants informed the court that the vegetation was removed without the knowledge of the appellants, but did not seek to rely on this fact as a part of its substantive appeal.

The PIN…

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 Page v Manningham City Council

Details

AGLC: Page, Shaun v Manningham City Council [2010] VSC 267
Case: [2010] VSC 267
Decision Date: 17 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Page v Manningham City Council is a case concerning a dispute between the respondents, Manningham City Council, and the appellants, the Pages. The issue at hand pertains to the enforcement of planning regulations and the validity of proceedings initiated by the Council against the Pages for alleged planning offences. The case was appealed to the court from a decision made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had ruled on questions of law regarding the planning enforcement regime. The core legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the interpretation of statutes, specifically the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Infringements Act 2006, as well as the applicability of administrative estoppel in this context.

The court examined whether the Council was barred by statute from instituting enforcement proceedings after issuing penalty infringement notices to the Pages. This required a detailed interpretation of the statutory language, particularly the meaning of 'in respect of the offence' and how it relates to the expiation of offences. The court also considered whether the terms of the penalty infringement notice precluded the Council from bringing enforcement proceedings, and if these terms were required by law. The court's reasoning involved a close analysis of the legislative provisions and how they interact with each other.

The court concluded that the Council was not barred from instituting enforcement proceedings after issuing penalty infringement notices to the Pages, and that the offence had not been expiated. The court found that the terms of the penalty infringement notice did not preclude the Council from bringing enforcement proceedings, and that these terms were not required by law. The court's decision hinged on a nuanced interpretation of the statutory language and the legislative framework governing planning enforcement. The court's findings led to the dismissal of the appeal, upholding the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Orders