A brief summary of this decision:
A property was divided into lots. Some lots were located in one planning zone and other lots in another planning zone, but no one lot straddled zones, rather each lot followed the zones boundaries. The developer wished to subdivide the land. However the council refused to grant permission, citing that the entire subdivision must satisfy the more restrictive zone requirements, which it did not.
The member of the tribunal considered two sets of precedent.
Firstly, Rumpf v Melton SC and Siomos v Banyule CC, stated that to subdivide land that straddles multiple zones, the subdivision as a whole ‘must comply with the zone controls in relation to each portion insofar as they apply to the land’ (at 17). That is, when subdividing property that straddles multiple zones, the limitations of subdivision of both zones must be complied with, it is not enough to satisfy the requirements of only one of the zones.
Secondly, Miller & Merrigan PL v Yarra Ranges SC stated when there is a piece of land divided into lots, and some of the lots are on one zone of land and other lots on another zone of land, subdivision of each lot is determined by the rules of their accompanying zone.
Rumpf v Melton SC and Siomos v Banyule are therefore distinguishable from Miller & Merrigan PL v Yarra Ranges SC on the basis that in the former the land straddles multiple zones and in the latter the land is split into lots that follow the boundary of multiple zones.
In the current case the land did not straddle multiple zones, but its lots followed the boundary of multiple zones. Therefore the principle in Miller & Merrigan PL v Yarra Ranges SC was applied and subdivision was permitted according to the individual zone requirements.