This decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”) involved balancing the need to preserve native vegetation and the other desires in the context of urban development. The decision discussed the application of Clause 52.17 of the Planning Scheme (which relates to native vegetation retention) and whether it had been adequately addressed by a proposed subdivision.

VCAT found that the combination of State Government policy and various amendments to Clause 52.17 has shifted the application of this provision toward the conservation of native vegetation and avoiding or minimising losses. The question should be why should native vegetation be lost, rather than asking how the loss can be offset.

• The whole decision is available on Austlii.