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