VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P260/2019
Permit Application no. M/2018/826	

APPLICANTS	Chak Ying Li & Others 	
responsible authority	Maroondah City Council	
RESPONDENT	H Rouse 	
SUBJECT LAND	45 Croydon Road
CROYDON VIC 3136	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member	
HEARING TYPE	Practice Day Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	21 June 2019	
DATE OF ORDER	24 June 2019	
CITATION	Chak Ying Li v Maroondah CC [2019] VCAT 951	

Order
1	Pursuant to section 124 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 a permit is required for the removal of the Deodar Cedar pursuant to clause 42.03-2 of the Significant Landscape Overlay under the Maroondah Planning Scheme.
2	The request for a suppression order is refused. 
Relevant dates
3	The following dates are the dates referred to in these orders.
Item	Action 	Date	Time	Duration	Number of members 	
A	Hearing 	14 August 2019	10:00AM	1 Day	1	

4	Please read the information included in Appendix A and observe any directions included in the Appendix.
5	All hearings and compulsory conferences will be conducted at 55 King Street, Melbourne.
6	Any changes to the hearing date, length or venue of hearing will be notified by further order of the Tribunal.  
Confirm hearing
7	The date of the hearing set out in the Tribunal’s initiating order is confirmed.  This proceeding is listed for hearing on the date and for the time set out in item A of order 2. No further hearing notice will be sent.
Hearing fees
8	If you are the applicant in this proceeding, you may be required to pay a daily hearing fee before the hearing commences. For more information, see Appendix A and the VCAT website.

Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr H Ng, Town Planner	
For responsible authority	Ms K Wiggins, Town Planner	
For respondent	Ms H Rouse, in person	

Reasons

1	The applicants raised a preliminary issue as to whether a permit is required under the provisions of the Significant Landscape Overlay for the removal of a Deodar Cedar, described as Tree 1, located in the front of the subject land.    
2	Under the Significant Landscape Overlay at clause 42.03-2 a permit is required to:
Remove, destroy or lop any vegetation specified in a schedule to this overlay. This does not apply:
•		If the table to Clause 42.03-3 specifically states that a permit is not required.
3	The table to clause 42.03-3 refers to ‘planted vegetation’ and provides such vegetation as described is exempt from the requirement for a permit. That is:
Vegetation that is to be removed, destroyed or lopped that was either planted or grown as a result of direct seeding for Crop raising or Grazing animal production.
4	The applicant submitted the tree was planted, therefore it is exempt from requiring a permit for removal. 
5	The council submitted ‘the exemption would only apply if the land was being used for crop raising or grazing animal production and if the vegetation was planted or grown as a result of direct seeding for the specific purpose of crop raising or to feed livestock associated with grazing animal production. This is not the case of the subject land’.
6	I disagree with the applicants’ interpretation. The word ‘planted’ must be read in conjunction with the remaining part of the provision that is ‘for the specific purpose of Crop raising or Grazing animal production’.
7	Whilst this tree was planted, it is located within a suburban setting. There was no information to suggest the subject land had previously been used for   either Crop raising or Grazing animal production and that the tree had been planted for either purpose. 
8	The respondent/objector requested a suppression order be made. The application was made on the basis of concerns that health information could be disclosed, as well as safety reasons.
9	The respondent/objector has chosen to participate in the proceeding by lodging a statement of grounds with the Tribunal and indicating they would appear. A statement of grounds could have been lodge by the respondent/objector without an indication they wished to appear at the hearing, and in such circumstances their statement would have been considered by the Tribunal, but they would not have been a party and would not have been referred to in any orders. 
10	This course is still open to the respondent/objector to request they no longer be a party. 
11	This proceeding is a review of a planning decision by the Maroondah City Council. The proceedings do not raise any issue regarding personal health details or safety issues related to the respondent/objector. There is no reference on AustLII (the decisions data base) to the name of the respondent/objector in the citation of the case and it is therefore unlikely that any search of the respondent/objector’s name could be carried out. Even if this was so there is no reference to the respondent/objector’s address or health records. The application is refused.  

Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member