The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Practice Day Hearing for the Waterfront Place Beacon Cove covenants was held today with the following outcomes (subject to the wording of any official VCAT record or order): Issues relating to the ambit of covenants were not resolved, and as a result another Practice Day hearing is scheduled
According to the Daily Hearings List for Friday 31 May 2013 Waterfront Place VCAT case P764/2013 (covenants) is scheduled for 11:00am in room G.1 under Senior Member Jeanette Rickards. Jeanette Rickards is Deputy Head of the Planning and Environment List in the Administrative Division of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Prior to her
Michael Danby, Federal MP for Melbourne Ports, has expressed concerns to Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese about inappropriate development at Waterfront Place, and has also asked State Minister for Planning Matthew Guy to prevent high rise development at Waterfront Place Port Melbourne. His Constituency Statement in the House of Representatives may be
The Waterfront Place VCAT Practice Day Hearing (described in PNVCAT5) is scheduled for Friday 31 May 2013 (end of this week). Notice of the date was sent by email to parties at 12:44pm today [P764 2012 PDH notice]. The practice hearing is nominally set for 10:00am – however the timing may be confirmed after 4:30pm
21 May 2013: Planning Minister Matthew Guy handed back planning powers for the Waterfront Place precinct at Port Melbourne to the City of Port Phillip in August 2011. Today, in handing back planning powers to other local councils for 21 significant sites across Melbourne including South Wharf, he said sites of local significance “require detailed
The City of Port Phillip is accepting submissions on the Port Melbourne Waterfront Urban Design Framework (UDF) until 1 Jun 2013. This framework includes the area impacted by the 1-11 Waterfront Place Port Melbourne development. The UDF includes separate draft Design Guidelines 1-7 Waterfront Place to guide any possible future development on the privately owned
11 February 2013: Supreme Court of Victoria Associate Justice Mukhtar has ordered that (by consent): “1. The directions hearing scheduled for 11 February 2013 be vacated. 2. On of before 13 May 2013 the Plaintiff must: (a) file and serve on the Defendants … to this affidavit material upon which it intends to rely; and
8 February 2013: The solicitor for Waterfront Place Pty Ltd today advised Beacon Cove benefitted owners (i.e. holders of protective covenants) as follows: “We refer to the Orders of (Supreme Court of Victoria) Associate Justice Zammit dated 6 December 2012 and to the directions hearing which had been scheduled for 11 February 2013. The parties
9 Jan 2013 The Port of Melbourne Corporation has criticised the impact of the proposed 1-11 Waterfront Place development on traffic operations associated with the Station Pier terminal in its submission to the City of Port Phillip. See “Port fights bayside tower plan“, by Henrietta Cook, in The Age.
6 December 2012: The City of Port Phillip today invited comments on the developer’s proposal for 1-11 Waterfront Place, Port Melbourne. “The submitted plan proposes the following: Three buildings of five, 10 and 19 storeys. A total of 241 dwellings comprising town houses, apartments and serviced apartments. Vehicle access from Beach Street with three basement
31 Oct 2012 On behalf of its client, Waterfront Place Pty Ltd, solicitor Rigby Cooke Lawyers notified objectors to Supreme Court application S CI 2012 03598 that “our client is currently considering its options in this matter”. Rigby Cooke has “requested the consent of the defendants” (Mirvac Victoria Pty Limited, Mirvac (Beacon Cove) Pty Limited
13 September 2012 Supreme Court of Victoria Associate Judge Zammit has issued new orders following a directions hearing on 10 September 2012. General References
10 September 2012: The Supreme Court of Victoria (Justice Zammit) held its directions hearing on an application by Waterfront Place Pty Ltd to remove the community’s restrictive covenants on 1-11 Waterfront Place. General References
28 August 2012: The City of Port Phillip has declined Mirvac Victoria Pty Limited’s offer to transfer its role as arbiter of the covenants on 1-11 Waterfront Place to the Council. [More (PDF)] Council notes provide a timeline of events: 1996: The Recreation Centre and Child Care Centre at 1-11 Waterfront Place, Port Melbourne (the
14 August 2012 Today is the deadline for lodgement of objections to an application by Waterfront Place Pty Ltd to the Supreme Court of Victoria to remove covenants on 1-7 Waterfront Place. Of 55 residential benefitted owners, 33 lodged objections. All of 3 corporate beneficiaries lodged objections: Mirvac Victoria Pty Ltd (represented by Norton Rose
26 July 2012: On behalf of its client, Waterfront Place Pty Ltd, solicitor Rigby Cooke Lawyers has notified benefitted owners that they have applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria to have their covenants over 1-11 Waterfront Place removed. This notice was given in accordance with orders of Associate Justice Mukhtar on 18 July 2012.
18 July 2012: Waterfront Place Pty Ltd sought orders from the Supreme Court of Victoria to remove the restrictive covenants from the site under Section 84 of the Property Law Act. Orders by Associate Justice Mukhtar. General References
25 June 2012: Waterfront Place Pty Ltd filed its notification of an application to the Supreme Court of Australia for these orders: (re: 1-5 Waterfront Place) “An order pursuant to section 84 of the Property Law Act that any restriction arising under any covenant in instrument of transfer registered number AE999760U dated 30 March 2007
29 May 2012: A media release reiterates Planning Minister Matthew Guy‘s decision in 2011 to hand back planning powers for the Waterfront Place precinct at Port Melbourne to the City of Port Phillip.
9 Mar 2012: 163 submissions were received during Community Consultation on the draft Urban Design Framework (UDF) 2011. The City of Port Phillip reports: 66 supported the UDF 73 did not support any redevelopment of 1-11 Waterfront Place 47 indicated that it would be appropriate if 1-11 Waterfront Place was redeveloped somewhere in the range