Click here to load reader
Upload
vanduong
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
FRIENDS OF HAWKER VILLAGE INCORPORATED & ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY & ORS (Administrative Review) [2016] ACAT 56
AT 101/2015
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – planning and development – lease variation – whether the site is a single dwelling block
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 68Planning and Development Act 2007 ss 119, 120, 156,162, 407, 408A, Schedule 1, item 4
Subordinate Legislation: Lease Variation Code
Multi Unit Housing Development Code Parking and Vehicular Access General CodePlanning and Development Regulations 2008 s 8Territory Plan 2008
Cases Cited: Griffith Narrabundah Community Association v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2011] ACAT 61Sherl v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors [2011] ACAT 37Spence v Minister for Urban Services [2000] ACTAAT 37
Tribunal: Senior Member T Foley (Presiding)Senior Member G Trickett
Date of Orders: 2 June 2016Date of Reasons for Decision: 2 June 2016
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AT 101/2015
BETWEEN:
FRIENDS OF HAWKER VILLAGE INCORPORATEDApplicant
AND:
ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITYRespondent
AND:PETER PEPPAS and PETER MICALOS
Parties Joined
TRIBUNAL: Senior Member T Foley (Presiding)Senior Member G Trickett
DATE: 2 June 2016
ORDER
The Tribunal Orders that:
1. The decision dated 2 December 2015 to approve, subject to conditions, Development Application 20158466 to vary the Crown lease on block 12 section 37 Page is confirmed.
………………………………..Senior Member T Foley
for and on behalf of the Tribunal
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Friends of Hawker Village Incorporated (the applicant) has sought review of a
decision of the ACT Planning and Land Authority (the respondent) dated
2 December 2015 to approve, subject to conditions, Development Application
20158466 (the DA2015) to vary the Crown lease on block 12 section 37 Page
(the site) to permit a maximum of five dwellings pursuant to section 162 of the
Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) (the Planning Act).
2. The applicant is an incorporated association which made a representation under
section 156 of the Planning Act about the decision and as such is an eligible
entity which can apply for review of the decision under section 408A of the Act.
3. Peter Peppas and Peter Micalos lessees under the Crown lease (the Lessees) were
joined as parties.
4. The review is an application for review by the ACT Civil and Administrative
Tribunal pursuant to section 68 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Act 2008 (the ACAT Act). A decision under section 162 of the Planning Act is
reviewable by the Tribunal under sections 407, 408A and Schedule 1, item 4 of
the Planning Act.
The Hearing
5. The matter was heard on 7 April 2016. The Tribunal had before it the documents
provide by the respondent on which its decision was based (the T Documents),
the submissions and statements of facts and contentions of the parties, witness
statements and other exhibits tendered in evidence. The applicant was self
represented by Ms R Coghlan assisted by Mr C Lyons. The respondent was
represented by Ms K Katavic of counsel and the parties joined were represented
by Mr M Falcetta solicitor.
6. The applicant and parties joined called no evidence. Evidence for the respondent
was given by Karen Walker.
Background
7. The site is land zoned RZ2 under the Territory Plan 2008 (the Territory Plan)
and sits at the corner of Belconnen Way and Petterd Street Page. It is 1075 sqm.
2
8. On 3 March 1970 a Crown lease was registered in relation to the site (the 1970
Crown lease).1 The lease provided inter alia that the lessee ‘erect one building
only’ (clause c) and ‘use the said land for residential purposes’ (clause g).
9. On 30 December 1970 a certificate of occupancy was issued in respect of ‘brick
residence and flat’ erected on the site. The approved site plan2 shows these
structures were erected within one building.
10. On 6 May 2010 a variation of the Crown lease was registered to permit ‘a single
dwelling; or multi-unit housing of not more than two (2) dwellings’.3
11. 0n 9 August 2013 Development Application 201323208 (the DA2013) was
approved on reconsideration by the respondent to further vary the Crown lease
to permit a maximum of five dwellings and to grant design and siting approval
for five dwellings.4
12. On 29 April 2015 Development Application 201426813 (the DA2014) seeking
approval to build a reconfigured two-storey building comprising five dwellings
was approved by the respondent.5 At that time DA2013 remained current.
13. DA2013 expired on 10 August 2015. DA2014 has not expired.
14. On 20 October 2015 DA2015 was lodged by the lessees seeking fresh approval to
vary the Crown lease to permit a maximum of five dwellings.6
15. On 12 November 2015 the applicant submitted a representation with respect to
DA2015.7
16. On 2 December 2015 the respondent approved DA2015 subject to conditions.
The relevant law
17. An application to vary a Crown lease is a ‘development’ within the meaning of
that term in section 7 of the Planning Act.
1 T-Documents 171-1722 T Documents 1783 T Documents 1754 T Documents 1485 T Documents 1336 T Documents 1117 T Documents 79-84
3
18. Approval of DA2015 is subject to relevant provisions of the Planning Act. The
development is assessable in the merit track under the Territory Plan and as
such section 119 and section 120 are specifically relevant.
19. Approval cannot be given if the proposed development is inconsistent with the
Territory Plan. The site is within a RZ2 Zone under the Territory Plan and
subject to the RZ2 Suburban Core Zone Objectives (the RZ2 Zone Objectives).
The proposed development is also relevantly subject to the Lease Variation
Code (the Lease Variation Code), the Multi Unit Housing Development Code
(the Multi Unit Code), the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code and
the Page Precinct Code. The codes form part of the Territory Plan.
20. The relevant terms are defined in the Territory Plan:
Single dwelling block
21. Single dwelling block means a block with one of the following characteristics:
(a) originally leased or used for the purposes of single dwelling housing
(b) created by a consolidation of blocks, at least one of which was originally
leased or used for the purpose of single dwelling housing.
Dwelling
22. Dwelling has the same meaning as in the Planning and Development Regulations
2008.
23. Section 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2008 provides that
meaning:
5 Meaning of dwelling(1) In this regulation:
dwelling—
(a) means a class 1 building, or a self-contained part of a class 2 building, that—
(i) includes the following that are accessible from within the building, or the self-contained part of the building:
(A) at least 1 but not more than 2 kitchens;
(B) at least 1 bath or shower;
(C) at least 1 toilet pan; and
4
(ii) does not have access from another building that is either a class 1 building or the self-contained part of a class 2 building; and
(b) includes any ancillary parts of the building and any class 10a buildings associated with the building.
(2) In this section: kitchen does not include—
(a) outdoor cooking facilities; or
(b) a barbeque in an enclosed garden room.
Evidence called
24. Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Ms Karen Walker, who is its
leasing assessment officer. She says she assessed DA2015. In her view the site
is not a single dwelling block. She assessed DA2015 against the Lease Variation
Code (including section 120 of the Planning Act), the Residential Zones
Development Code, the Multi Unit Code & the suitability of the site. Her
evidence was that previous approvals on the site demonstrated that it was
possible to construct five dwellings. These decisions had been assessed and
approved by a senior assessment officer within the merit assessment team. She
herself was assessing a lease variation only, she was not assessing physical
construction. She states that she reviewed the previous DA2014 approval for
five units which did not comply with all the rules but was assessed against
criteria, and that she agreed with that approval.
The matters at issue
25. Two substantive matters were in issue:
(a) Is the site a single dwelling block? If the site is a single dwelling block, a
lease variation to permit a maximum of five dwelling would not be
permissible.
(b) Has the respondent made the correct and preferable decision to vary the
Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5) dwellings? If the site is not a single
dwelling block, the question then remains whether the respondent has
made the appropriate decision to approve the lease variation.
5
Issue 1. Is the site a single dwelling block?
The applicant’s contentions
26. The applicant contends the site is unsuitable for multi-unit development because it
will contribute to the destruction of the neighbourhood character. The applicant
distinguishes the position in Sherl v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors8
in this regard where multi-unit development was approved on a consolidated
block even though “the tribunal accept[ed] that the proposed development will
not replicate the existing development in the immediate area.” The applicant
says in this instance the subject site is not a consolidated block, is of
substantially smaller area (1075 sqm as compared with a block size of 1519 sqm
in Sherl) and will significantly detract from the existing development in the
immediate area.
27. The applicant further contends any status the site may have as ‘a multi-unit
dwelling block’ is an anomaly not obviously considered in the reformulated
2008 definition of ‘dwelling’ in the Territory Plan and the Planning and
Development Regulations given it is by surrounded by single dwelling blocks.
The applicant contends that it was never the legislative intention that a single
structure containing a ‘brick residence and flat’ would later be classified as two
dwellings in that reformulation. The applicant says that if this apparent anomaly
is not revisited by the ACT government it will have serious ramifications for
unintended intensification in the Page and Weetangera areas given that similar
site locations exist in these neighbourhoods.
28. The applicant contends, but as a consequence concedes, that the current effect is
that the site and “indeed any block elsewhere in Canberra before 1971” is
classifiable as a “multi-unit dwelling block according to the current (2016)
definition.”9
29. The applicant accepts that under the 1970 Crown lease the lessor “could have a
second residence as long as it was part of the one building.”10 The applicant
8 Sherl v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors [2011] ACAT 37 at [126]-[127]
9 Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 6 at [10]
10 Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 6 at [10]
6
accepts that the “residence with attached flat” type of development in fact
erected on the site was therefore a permissible development, but concedes this
was only “for a brief period.”11 This, in the applicant’s eyes, the period when a
‘legal loophole’ existed was closed after 1972 when Crown lease provisions
were altered to substitute “erect one private single dwelling house building” for
“erect one building only”12 thereby forestalling any further development of this
anomalous kind.
30. It is the applicant’s further contention nonetheless that while these ‘residence with
flat’ developments approved in the brief period 1970-1972 at the time “blended
into the neighbourhood quite well. [That now] treating them differently from
neighbouring [single dwelling] blocks for redevelopment purposes will change
this balance and is not consistent with RZ2 Objective (b) to provide
opportunities for redevelopment by enabling a limited extent of change with
regard to the original pattern of subdivision and the density of dwellings.”
31. The applicant’s overall contention is that it is the anomaly arising from this brief
1970-1972 period that was not properly taken into account in the 2008
reformulated definition of ‘dwelling’ and as such the site should be classified as
a single dwelling block.
The respondent’s contentions
32. The respondent contends the site is not a single dwelling block within the meaning
of the legislation in that it was not ‘originally leased or used for the purposes of
single dwelling housing’. The respondent relies on the authority in Spence v
Minister for Urban Services13 that a lease clause to the effect of to ‘use the said
land for residential purposes’ as in clause (g) of the current Crown lease does
not by itself impose any ‘restriction on the number of dwellings that are able to
be constructed on the land’. Further, the respondent contends that the provision
to ‘erect one building only’ in clause (c) restricts the number of buildings to
one, but does not restrict the number of dwellings that may be constructed
within that building to one.
11 Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 6 at [11]
12 Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 713 Spence v Minister for Urban Services [2000] ACTAAT 37 at [7]
7
33. The respondent contends that the original building on the site contained two
dwellings within the meaning of ‘dwelling’ in the legislation as both the ‘brick
residence’ and the ‘flat’ constituted ‘a self-contained part of a class 2 building’.
The original approved site plans14 show a ‘brick residence’ and a ‘flat’
constructed within the one building, that is to say in the respondent’s view two
dwellings. Further the respondent contends the certificate of occupancy15 issued
was in respect of two self-contained spaces, that is to say two dwellings.16
34. Therefore the respondent contends the site has never been a single dwelling block.
The parties joined contentions
35. The parties joined contend the site was never a single dwelling block as there were
two dwellings initially constructed on the site and that this usage was
regularised in the variation to the crown lease registered on 6 May 2010 to
permit the use of the land for more than one dwelling (clause 3j).17
Tribunal’s conclusions on Issue 1
36. Relevantly in the Territory Plan 'single dwelling block' means either (a) a block
originally leased or used for the purposes of single dwelling housing, or (b) a
block created by a consolidation of blocks. The site in question is not a
consolidation of blocks. The 1970 Crown lease registered over the site imposed
a condition that it be used 'for residential purposes' and that such use be
restricted to 'erect[ing] one building only'. The restriction notably was not to
erect 'one dwelling only'. The certificate of occupancy and approved site plan
together show that one building was subsequently erected and that that building
contained two living areas – a 'brick residence' and a 'flat'.
37. The meaning of 'dwelling' in the Territory Plan is draws from Section 5 of the
Planning and Development Regulations which provides that a dwelling can
either be ‘a class 1 building’ or ‘a self-contained part of a class 2 building’. To
be a ‘dwelling’ in the second sense, the self-contained part needs to have
exclusive access from within the self-contained part to at least 1 kitchen, at least
1 bath or shower, and at least 1 toilet pan. The evidence was not disputed that 14 T Documents 17815 T Documents 17716 Respondent’s facts and contentions dated 15 March 2016 at [2]-[4]17 Parties joined facts and contentions dated 22 March 2016 at [4]-[5]
8
both the 'brick residence' and the 'flat' had exclusive access to each of such
amenities. The Tribunal finds that each of the 'brick residence' and the 'flat' were
therefore dwellings within the meaning of the Territory Plan.
38. The Tribunal finds as a consequence that the site was never a 'block originally
leased or used for the purposes of single dwelling housing' and therefore never a
single dwelling block.
39. The applicant’s contention was that the 1970 Crown lease wording of 'to erect one
building only' created a short term anomaly allowing more than one living area
on what was intended to be a single dwelling block and this was quickly
rectified in subsequent Crown leases after 1972. However the applicant says the
consequence of this anomaly was not taken into account in the 2008
reformulated definition of ‘dwelling’ such that what should have been classified
as a single dwelling block given this history now falls within the statutory
meaning of multi-dwelling blocks.
40. The Tribunal’s view is that while there may be some merit in the applicant’s
argument that this was an unintended consequence, it is nonetheless a
consequence. It was a consequence restated in the 6 May 2010 Crown lease
variation registered to permit ‘a single dwelling; or multi-unit housing of not
more than two (2) dwellings’. If such a consequence is seen as unintended, the
ACT Government will need to revisit the definition of ‘dwelling’ as currently
provided in the Territory Plan.
Issue 2. Has the respondent made the correct or preferable decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5) dwellings’?
The applicant’s contentions
41. The applicant contends that the approval will set a precedent which will result in
piecemeal over-development and inconsistent re-development in the Page area
to the detriment to the neighbourhood. The applicant identified a number of
similar sites of “single buildings containing a primary and secondary residence”
in the area.18
18 Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 2
9
42. The applicant contends that the wider context of this effect should have been
considered in making the decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five
(5) dwellings’. Specifically, issues of parking, traffic and traffic visibility, and
the hazardous location of the development immediately adjacent to busy
Belconnen Way should have been, but in the applicant’s view were not,
adequately considered when applying Criterion 1 of the Lease Variation Code.
The applicant contends that no explanation was provided as to how the
subjective decision that assessed the development as ‘consistent with the
criteria’ was reached.19
43. The applicant further contends that inadequate consideration was given to whether
the site to which the lease variation applied was suitable for development of ‘up
to five (5) dwellings’. The applicant contends that given the building density
proposed for the site and its location in a natural hollow near a hazardous
intersection with Belconnen Way, issues of the adequacy of onsite parking, its
effect on on-street parking safety, local traffic congestion and amenity were not
adequately considered in determining whether “the land to which the lease
applies is suitable for the development or use authorised by the varied lease”
Lease Variation Code C1(ii).
The respondent’s contentions
44. The respondent contends the application is not a review of the merits of DA2014
but rather a review confined to whether it was correct or preferable to approve,
subject to conditions, the variation to the Crown lease.
45. The respondent contends that the application to vary the Crown lease is a
‘development’ that meets the relevant provisions of the Planning Act,
specifically section 119(a), because it is consistent with the Lease Variation
Code and other relevant codes in so far as they relate to lease variations, and
that as required by section 120, the RZ2 Zone Objectives and other relevant
provisions have been properly considered.
19 Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 3
10
46. The respondent contends the consideration given to these relevant matters the
correct or preferable decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5)
dwellings’ was made.
The parties joined contentions
47. The parties joined contend the application is not a review of the merits of
DA2014.20 The parties joined further contend that the correct or preferable
decision was made to approve, subject to conditions, the variation to the Crown
lease. There is the evidence of Karen Walker that proper consideration was
given to the Lease Variation Code and all other relevant codes and that this is
evident from documents generated in the approval process21 where attention to
these matters was clearly set out.
Tribunal’s conclusion on Issue 2
48. The respondent makes the valid submission that this application is not a review of
DA2014 for which a two-storey building comprising five dwellings was
approved on 29 April 2015 and which approval remains current.
49. Nonetheless DA2015 cannot be approved if the proposed development does not
meet the relevant provisions of the Planning Act and/or is inconsistent with the
Territory Plan, specifically the RZ2 Zone Objectives and the relevant codes,
most specifically the Lease Variation Code and the Multi Unit Code.
50. The Lease Variation Code has no rule about meeting lease variations generally but
C1 provides:
A lease is varied only where all of the following are achieved:
i) the varied lease is consistent with the Territory Plan including all
relevant codes
ii) the land to which the lease applies is suitable for the development
or use authorised by the varied lease.
20 Parties joined facts and contentions dated 22 March 2016 at [11]21 Notably T Documents 32, T Documents 50-54
11
51. There was uncontested evidence from Karen Walker22 before the Tribunal that the
relevant provisions of section 119 of the Planning Act, specifically the section
119(a) requirement that the development be consistent with the relevant codes,
in particular the Lease Variation Code, had been considered and were deemed to
be met.
52. The requirement of section 120 of the Planning Act is to ‘consider’ a range of
matters which include the Zone objectives. The Tribunal accepts the view in
Griffith Narrabundah Community Association v ACT Planning and Land
Authority23 that this does “not impose any obligation to make a decision that [is]
‘consistent’ with them.” The Tribunal is guided by the approach used in Scherl
at [122] in that regard that the zone objectives “must be borne in mind when
applying the Code and also when interpreting codes”. Zone objective e)
provides:
Ensure redevelopment is carefully managed so that it achieves a high standard of residential amenity, makes a positive contribution to the neighbourhood and landscape character of the area and does not have unreasonable negative impacts on neighbouring properties.
53. The Tribunal accepts that adequate consideration was given to all necessary
matters. The Tribunal finds that the respondent has made the correct or
preferable decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5) dwellings’.
54. It is useful to say something about the merits of DA2014 even though this is not
before the Tribunal given the approved development is clearly too large for the
site and does not provide the amenity required. An analysis of the approved
plan24 demonstrates that the proposal would be inconsistent with a number of
the requirements of both the RZ2 Zone Objectives and the Multi Unit Code as
well as the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code. It is worth highlighting
the extent of these inconsistencies when future development in the
neighbourhood is considered.
22 Exhibit R1 at [10]-[16]23 Griffith Narrabundah Community Association v ACT Planning and
Land Authority [2011] ACAT 61 at 38-3924 T Documents 147
12
55. The Multi Unit Code criteria provide, in the same way as other codes, for an
alternative standard if a rule requirement is not met. Nonetheless there is an
overriding requirement to meet the RZ2 Zone Objective (e). In this case the
cumulative effect across the site of relying on the satisfaction of a significant
number of criteria for assessment where rules are not met has resulted in a
development that does not meet those objectives, specifically Zone Objective
(e).
56. For instance R29 and C29 of the Code make provisions for front boundary
setbacks. The requirements of R29 have not been met on the site and approval
appears to have been granted based on C29. The site is a corner block and as
such has a front boundary (setback requirement of 6m) and a secondary street
frontage (setback requirement of 4m). The front boundary setbacks for the
lower and upper floor levels are both 6m.25 The secondary street frontage
setbacks are lower floor level 4m, upper floor level 6m and garage 5.5m.
57. The front boundary 6m setback is encroached. This is to a minor degree in the
case of all units (with the exception of unit 1) where it is encroached by support
blade or fin walls to the narrow porch which are approximately 600mm long.
These encroachments were reasonably approved subject to a qualitative
assessment.
58. In the case of unit 1 the encroachment is not minor. The front boundary 6m
setback, as well as the secondary street frontage 4m setback to the lower floor
level, is encroached by the southeast corner of unit 1. The setback should be
determined by a line drawn perpendicular to the front boundaries. The front
boundary is an arc at this location. The setback to unit 1 is encroached by the
building at least 2m at this corner (not including the blade or fin wall). The
encroachment diminishes extending for slightly under 4m in both directions of
the external walls of unit 1, to both Belconnen Way and to Petterd Street, until
there is no encroachment and the remaining walls comply with the 6m and 4m
setbacks as set out in R29. In spite of this gradual diminishment the
encroachment is nonetheless significant.
25 Evident from T Document 147
13
59. The secondary street frontage 5.5m setback to the garage of unit 1 is also
encroached by 1.5 m for its full extent along Petterd Street. These are marked
encroachments of unit 1 and the double garage for unit 1 and could not
reasonably be approved against the criteria subject to a qualitative assessment.
60. Similarly, R61 and C61 of the Code make provisions for principal private open
space (PPOS). The requirements of R61 have not been met and approval has
been granted based on C61. The PPOS for all units are encroached by
rectangular water tanks which are not excluded service functions. The PPOS to
units 1 and 5 are also further encroached by a structural column. The PPOS to
unit 5 is further encroached by a retaining wall which reduces the required 6m
minimum dimension (between this wall and the water tank) to approximately
4.5m. The required quantified area of 36 sqm for PPOS is also reduced.
61. The PPOS of all the units other than unit 5 could reasonably be approved subject
to a qualitative assessment. But the diminutions to the PPOS of unit 5 do not
achieve an area proportionate to the size of the dwelling, or an extension of the
function of the dwelling for relaxation, dining, entertaining and recreation and
therefore could not reasonably be approved against the criteria subject to a
qualitative assessment.
62. Additionally, R73 and C73 of the Code make provisions for internal driveways.
Neither is reasonably met in the approved development. R 73 a) and c) have not
been met as the western end of the driveway is shown to be no more than
500mm from the boundary. It is also not met as the northern end adjacent to this
area has no perceptible set back whereas R73 requires a 1m set back. C73 has
also not been met as there is insufficient space for the required planting along
the property boundary to the northwest area of the internal driveway.
63. Finally, R82 and C82 of the Code make provisions for visitor parking. Neither is
reasonably met in the approved development. The single visitor space provided
is located behind the garage to unit 5 at the remotest point from either street; it
is not clearly visible from the driveway, and while within 50m of the rear entry
gates to the PPOS of each unit it is located more than 50 m from the front
entries to each unit.
14
64. The driveway is shown as being 5m wide which is under the minimum width as
set out in the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code and the relevant
AS 2890.1. It is required to be a minimum 5.8m wide.
65. The development also does not reasonably meet the Parking and Vehicular Access
General Code for visitor parking. Given there are five units the Code requires
two visitor parking spaces, however only one is provided.
66. Whilst visitors may park in the street R82 of the Multi Unit Code refers to “spaces
on the site”. An analysis of the potential for street parking adjacent to the
subject site highlights that Belconnen Way is a major road where parking in the
street is not desirable. Parking along Petterd Street is similarly limited due to the
close proximity to the major intersection with Belconnen Way, the major
stormwater infrastructure, and the driveway to the site. As the development has
adopted the option of shared parking spaces for three units on the subject site
there is the additional probable need for a resident to park in the street.
67. The development on the site does not include the additional visitor parking space
nor is it obvious how this space could be located on the site, given the extent of
development, as there is no available space behind the front zone. The inclusion
of a second visitor parking space combined with the additional set back of the
garage of unit 1 from Petterd Street and the 1m internal driveway set back at
boundaries would require a site that is approximately 4.5m wider in the east
west direction than the subject site.
68. In spite of these defects the merits of DA2014 are not under review and the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to that approval. Rather the matter at
issue is whether the respondent made the correct decision to vary the Crown
lease in DA2015. The Tribunal finds that it did.
Decision
69. The Tribunal confirms the decision under review to approve DA2015 subject to
the existing conditions.
15
………………………………..Senior Member T Foley
for and on behalf of the Tribunal
16
HEARING DETAILS
FILE NUMBER: AT 101/2015
PARTIES, APPLICANT: Friends of Hawker Village Incorporated
PARTIES, RESPONDENT: ACT Planning and Land Authority
PARTIES JOINED
COUNSEL APPEARING, APPLICANT N/A
COUNSEL APPEARING, RESPONDENT Ms Katavic
COUNSEL APPEARING, PARTIES JOINED
N/A
SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT N/A
SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT ACT Government Solicitor
SOLICITORS FOR PARTIES JOINED Mr Falcetta, Trinity Law
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS: Senior Member T Foley (Presiding)
Senior Member G Trickett
DATES OF HEARING: 7 April 2016
17