• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

2. The proposal under review is for Block 4 Section 198 Belconnen (Ngunnawal Country) (the Property) situated on Ibbot Lane and adjacent to the Capital Food Market.

3. The Property previously formed part of Block 2, Section 198. In about June 2024, this parcel was subdivided into the Property and Block 3, Section 198 upon which 1 the Capital Food Market is located.

4. On 28 February 2024, Canberra Town Planning Pty Ltd (CTP) submitted the DA 2 on behalf of the lessee/property owner Elanor Funds Management Ltd. On 3 27 May 2024 the proponent lodged an application to amend the DA.

5. The DA was submitted under the merit track.

6. On 8 November 2024 the Authority refused the DA pursuant to section 162 of 4 the Planning and Development Act 2007 (PDA).

7. On 14 March 2025 CTP made an application for reconsideration pursuant to section 191 of the PDA, on behalf of the lessee/property owner Block 2 Markets 5 Landowner Pty Ltd.

8. On 5 May 2025 pursuant to section 193 of the PDA, the Authority confirmed the

1 Exhibit R3 Deposited Plan 16282/1, Plan of Blocks 3 & 4 Section 198, being subdivision of Blocks 2 Belconnen and comprising of three plans 2 Development Application T 965–966 (for Block 2 Section 198 Belconnen) 3 T 874 4 Notice of Decision (NoD) T 561 5 Application for reconsideration T 179–183 (for Block 4 Section 198 Belconnen) original decision to refuse the proposal. In its reasons for decision on reconsideration, the Authority stated that the original decision was confirmed 6 because: a) a review of the information available, when the original decision was made, disclosed no grounds that would support the approval of the development as proposed in the original application; and b) The information provided in the application for reconsideration provided insufficient grounds for the approval of the proposed development as revised.

9. On 30 May 2025, the applicant filed an Application for Review of Decision made by the respondent on 5 May 2025.

10. The original DA was submitted prior to the commencement of the Planning Act 2023 (PA). The reconsidered DA was assessed and determined under the PDA and the Territory Plan 2008 (the Plan) under transitional arrangements pursuant to section 613 of the PA.

11. The original DA proposal is described in the Notice of Decision (NoD) as being 7 for: The demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed-use development consisting of hotel, residential apartments, basement carparking, communal areas, commercial tenancies including healthcare and wellness facilities/gym, medical centre, home theatre, tree removal, driveway/verge crossing, landscaping and associated works.

12. The reconsideration proposal description remained the same but included key 8 changes to the proposal in the original DA: 1. Residential apartments design and layout amended and numbers reduced to 257; 2. Basement Level amenity removed, required parking/storage/bike store distributed across basement levels; 3. Lower Ground Level commercial space removed to accommodate additional carparking level; 4. Ground Floor Level amended to include a central courtyard and landscaping;

6 NoD T 39 7 NoD T 561 8 NoD T 37–38 5. Ground Floor Level Commercial area amended; 6. Attic apartments layout and circulation amended for compliance with attic definition; 7. Updated adaptable apartment layouts for new apartment types; 8. Waste Collection area amended and Loading/Unloading co-located; 9. Landscape plan amended; 10. Solar/ventilation compliance amended; 11. Façade and Roof amended to reflect new lift overruns for attic level access and façade amendments to reflect apartment updates; and 12. Tree retention updated as per Landscape Management and Protection Plan (LMPP) Hearing and representatives

13. The matter was heard on 3, 4 and 8 December 2025. The Tribunal, the parties and their representatives conducted a view of the site and surrounding area on the morning of 27 August 2025.

14. The applicant was represented by Mr P Walker SC (with Mr J Nottle), and the Respondent was represented by Mr J Larkings (with Mr S Tahir).

15. At the hearing the applicant relied on the evidence of Mr Paul Niclesse Marriette, Mr Peter Micalos, Mr Alexander Roy McLennan, and Mr Christopher Andrew Coath.

16. The respondent confirmed that they would “not be calling Mr Lincoln Rixon- 9 Petty or relying on his witness statement”.

17. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision.

18. Senior Members Walter Hawkins and Annabelle Pegrum heard the matter. Due to unexpected circumstances after the hearings concluded, Senior Member Hawkins was unable to continue on the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s consideration and decision was well advanced at this time.

19. Pursuant to section 92 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, President Daniel directed Senior Member Pegrum to continue dealing with the

9 MFI 1 email from respondent’s solicitor to the applicant’s solicitor dated 2 December 2025 application.

20. In these reasons, a reference to “ACAT” or “tribunal” refers to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal generally, whereas “Tribunal” refers to the member who determined the application.

Statutory Planning Framework

21. The DA, having been made before 27 November 2023, was determined under the 10 PDA notwithstanding its repeal.

22. Under the PDA, a development application must not be approved where the 11 proposed development would be inconsistent with the Plan. A development approval must not be granted for a development proposal in the merit track unless 12 the application is consistent with the relevant code.

23. The Property is zoned CZ3-Services Zone (CZ3). The associated precinct and development codes for compliance are the Belconnen Precinct Map and Code (BPMC); the Commercial Zones Development Code (CZDC) and the Multi Unit Housing Development Code (MUHDC). Applicable general codes also include the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code (PVAGC), End of Trip Facilities General Code (ETFGC), Access and Mobility (AMGC); Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTEDGC); and Waterways: Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD).

24. Pursuant to section 120 of the PDA, in deciding a development application for a development proposal in the merit track the decision maker must consider (relevantly): (a) the objectives for the zone in which the development is proposed to take place; (b) the suitability of the land for a development of the kind proposed; (c) Each representation (not withdrawn) received in public notification;

10 PA, s 613 11 PDA, s 50 12 PDA, s 119(1)(a) (d) the advice of the design review panel and the proponent responses. The ACT design review panel is the National Capital Design Review Panel (NCDRP); (e) the advice provided by an entity pursuant to section 149; and 13 (f) The probable impact of the proposed development.

25. Section 162(l)(b) of the PDA provides that a development application can be approved subject to a condition. Examples of the types of conditions which can be imposed are provided in section 165(3). These types include: (a) that a development, or a stated stage of a development, is to be 14 carried out to the satisfaction of a stated entity; … (d) that the approval does not take effect unless a stated approval is 15 revoked, amended or given; … (h) that stated things be done to prevent or minimise adverse 16 environmental impacts; … (p) that plans, drawings, specifications or other documents be prepared by the applicant and lodged with the planning and land authority for 17 approval before the development or a stated part of it starts; and (q) requiring changes to be made to any plan, drawing, specification or 18 other document forming part of the application for approval Basis for the refusal of the Reconsideration of the Development Application

26. The grounds for refusal as set out in the Notice of Decision on Reconsideration included: (a) The DA did not comply with legislated requirements for merit track applications under section 119 as it was inconsistent with: (i) the relevant codes, being the BPMC; the CZDC and the MUHDC;

13 PDA, ss 120 (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h) 14 PDA, s 165(3)(a) 15 PDA, s 165(3)(d) 16 PDA, s 165(3)(h) 17 PDA, s 165(3)(p) 18 PDA, s 165(3)(q) (ii) the advice given by entities, namely the Transport Canberra and City 19 Services Directorate (TCCS), the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), and Icon Water; and (iii) the advice from the NCDRP (b) the DA ‘ was not considered to meet the zone objectives f), g) and i) of the CZ3 Services zone and with the advice given by entities and the design review panel’ under section 120’; and

(c) The Authority was also ‘not satisfied that the proposed development is 20 suitable for the subject land in its current configuration’.

Issues and the Tribunal decision

27. In reviewing a decision, the Tribunal may exercise any of the functions of the 21 body that made the decision under review. The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act) requires that the Tribunal confirm, vary or set aside the decision under review; and if setting it aside, the Tribunal must either remit the matter to the original decision-maker, with or without directions or 22 recommendations, or substitute its own decision for that under review.

28. It is well established in the case law that the Tribunal, in reviewing the decision, 23 “stands in the shoes” of the original decision-maker; that it makes a fresh de 24 novo decision, based on all the evidence available at the time of the review; and 25 that it is seeking the “correct or preferable” decision.

29. The Tribunal’s In Chambers Order of 5 January 2026 set aside the decision to refuse the Reconsidered Development Application number 202342298 and substituted a decision to approve the Development Application with Conditions. On 9 January 2026 the respondent requested a statement of reasons for the making

19 Within the term of the DA and ACAT review, organisational change within the ACT Government replaced TCCS with the City and Environment Directorate (CED). For practical purposes TCCS is used throughout this document 20 T 39 21 ACAT Act, s 68(2) 22 ACAT Act, s 68(3) 23 Re Costello and Secretary, Department of Transport (1979) 2 ALD 934, 943 24 Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31, at [30]-[51] (Kirby J) 25 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409, 419 of the order pursuant to section 60 of the ACAT Act.

30. The Tribunal focused on the following issues raised by the parties: (a) The transitional planning arrangements for development applications under the PA subsection 613(2) and (3) and the ‘amendment’ provision under section 144(1) of the PDA. The sections are as follows (emphasis added): 613 Development applications made before commencement day (2) The repealed Act continues to apply in relation to the development application despite its repeal. (3) However, the development application may be amended under the repealed Act, section 144 only if the applicant asks for the amendment not later than 6 months after the commencement day. 144(1) Meaning of decision maker – ch 7 (1) The planning and land authority may, if asked by the applicant, amend a development application. 26 (b) The degree of change proposed for the development. The Tribunal considered whether the proposed changes should be viewed as an ‘amendment’ (subject to refusal under section 613 of the PA) or whether the development proposed remained substantially the same and could be approved subject to conditions (under section 165 of the PDA) to address compliance and mitigate adverse impacts. (c) The grounds for refusal of the reconsidered application within the NoD under the Plan and the PDA. (d) The consideration by Territory Entities of the proposed changes. (e) Whether the proposed changes warranted further public notification. (f) Consistency with the Crown Lease purpose clause.

The transitional planning arrangements for development applications under the PA – sections 144 and 613

31. Section 613 of the PA provides that for applications made but not yet decided before the date of the commencement, the PDA will continue to apply, despite its

26 Tabled as ‘exhibits’ as part of the Tribunal review repeal.

32. Subsection 613(3) of the PA references section 144 of the (repealed) PDA and allows for the applicant (the proponent) to have a DA considered under the PDA only if the amendment is requested not later than 6 months after the commencement date of the PA. (emphasis added)

33. Section 144 of the PDA provides that ‘the planning and land authority may, if asked by the applicant, amend a development application’. (emphasis added) but requires that: (2) … the planning and land authority must not amend the development application unless– (a) the authority is satisfied that– (i) the development applied for after the amendment will be substantially the same as the development applied for originally; and (ii) the assessment track for the application will not change if the application is amended; and (b) for land under a land sublease– (i) if the applicant is not the sublessee–the sublessee consents, in writing, to the amendment; and (ii) if the applicant is not the Crown lessee–the Crown lessee consents, in writing, to the amendment. (3) The planning and land authority must, not later than 5 working days after the day the applicant asks for the amendment– (a) amend the development application; or (b) refuse to amend the development application. (4) If the planning and land authority does not tell the applicant that the authority refuses to amend the application within the time given under subsection (3), the authority is taken to have amended the application.

34. After filing the ACAT application, the applicant served the respondent with updated plans, which purported to address issues of non-compliance set out in the Reconsideration Notice of Decision. These changes are summarised below (see [38].

35. The applicant contended that the variations cannot be amendments as they did not 27 formally apply for them pursuant to section 144 of the PDA. While prior

27 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 8 lines 16–18 amendments had been requested pursuant to section 144, they were not the subject of the proposed changes before the Tribunal.

36. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant had asked the Authority for an amendment to the development application pursuant to section 144(1) of the PDA, and was therefore limited by the transitional provisions pursuant to section 613(3) of the PA. On this basis the Tribunal considered that the DA under consideration was not subject to the transitional provisions of section 163(3) of the PA.

37. The Tribunal considered that the crux of the matter was whether the changes to the proposal under review presented a substantial departure from that originally submitted to the extent that it was fundamentally a different application and could therefore not be subject to conditions.

The degree of change proposed for the development 28

38. The Tribunal’s ‘Overview of Decision’ dated 11 December 2025, summarised the proposed changes to the development in the updated plans provided to the Tribunal as including: (a) A reduction in height from six to five levels with the removal of attics; (b) Introduction of a setback at ground level; (c) Changes to the number and mix of residential apartments and hotel rooms; (d) Changes to floor plan layouts; (e) Internalisation of hotel rooms; (f) Separation of built forms; (g) Associated updates to solar access of apartments and hotel; (h) Associated changes to parking provisions; (i) Rationalisation of waste management; (j) Landscaping enhancements with increased tree retention and deep soil planting;

28 In Chambers Order dated 11 December 2025 (k) The addition of a courtyard roof canopy; and (l) Updated metrics

39. Section 165 of the PDA provides for conditional approvals, relevantly: (1) This section applies in relation to the conditions subject to which the planning and land authority, or the Minister, may approve a development application under section 162 (1) (b). (2) The approval under section 162 (1) (b)– (a) must include any condition that is required to be included by the territory plan; and (c) must not include a condition inconsistent with a condition required to be included by the territory plan

40. Section 165 also outlines examples of when conditional approval may be given at the authority’s discretion (see above at [25]).

41. The applicant submitted that section 613(3) of the PA, by fastening on to 29 section 144 of the PDA was: not intended to limit how the Respondent may best deal with a DA which is on foot. Instead, and consistent with it being a transitional provision, it was intended to propose a temporal limit on the ability of a DA applicant to change the form of the application and therefore perhaps the different administrative treatment which it required. It was not intended to inhibit the ability of the Respondent to deal properly with a DA 30

42. The applicant drew the Tribunal’s attention to subsections 165(3)(p) and (q), as examples of imposed conditions contemplated by statute for the approval of applications and as the type of conditions proposed by the applicant: (p) that plans, drawings, specifications or other documents be prepared by the applicant and lodged with the planning and land authority for approval before the development or a stated part of it starts; (q) requiring changes to be made to any plan, drawing, specification or other document forming part of the application for approval.

43. At the hearing, the applicant stressed that the number and extent of proposed changes is not a consideration of whether ‘a lot of plans get changed’ which would ‘reduce a question of judgment to a question of numbers’. The applicant

29 Outline of submissions on behalf of the applicant dated 8 December 2025 at [17] 30 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 8 line 46 to page 9 line 8 posed that the ‘real question … [is] … impact, and if impact is reduced, then, in 31 my submission, there is nothing wrong with conditional approval’.

44. The applicant submitted that ‘there is no basis in the Act for an ill-defined notion that a change can be ‘too big’ to be the subject of a condition and 32 therefore, there has to be an amendment of the DA’.

45. The applicant characterised the legislative power of section 165 of the PDA to approve subject to conditions as ‘not unlimited’, but one that does not contain ‘any express qualifications, nor does it express any limits which say that the 33 ACTPLA does not have the power to impose a condition of that kind’.

46. The Applicant submitted that Crispin J’s view in McKenzie v ACT Planning and 34 Land Authority (McKenzie), subsequently cited in IP Property Botany Street Pty 35 Ltd v Territory Planning Authority (IP Property) provides authority for the proposition that section 165 of the PDA provides wide scope for the imposition of conditions on approval provided the development proposal remains essentially the same as the original development. At the hearing, the applicant, whilst acknowledging that McKenzie was ‘technically’ a decision on section 245 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991, observed that ‘it is virtually in 36 identical terms to s 165 of the Planning and Development Act’.

47. At [18], Crispin J noted the distinction between a change constituting a ‘completely different application’ and one that did not, was dependent on ‘questions of degree’.

48. The Respondent acknowledged that the Tribunal would be entitled to approve the DA subject to conditions but, consistent with IP Property, submitted that the suggested changes create ‘a completely different development application’ and therefore are better characterised as amendments pursuant to section 144. The respondent noted that the Authority’s position is not that ‘conditions now are

31 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 16, lines 32–37 32 Outline of submissions on behalf of the applicant dated 8 December 2025 at [12] 33 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 9 lines 19–21 34 [2004] ACTSC 80 35 [2025] ACTSC 346; Applicant’s submissions dated 8 December 2025 at [12] 36 Transcript of hearing, 8 December 2025, page 234 lines 2–5 prohibited … [but rather] … it’s a question of degree in circumstances where, in 37 this case, there are numerous changes to many aspects of this development.’

49. The Respondent emphasised the ‘distinction between when it is appropriate to regard variations to a proposal as constituting an amendment pursuant to PDA s 144 or to impose a condition pursuant to PDA s 165 may depend upon questions 38 of degree.’

50. The respondent accepted that the effect of the changes (for this proposal) was not to change the substance of the development, for example, from a ‘football stadium 39 [to a] high rise apartment’. Rather, referring to numerous different plans for this review served on the authority by the applicant – including ones filed on the 40 morning of the final hearing, the respondent noted: We’re commenting on what the evidence is that’s come in with the new plans, and of course, we’re dealing with a different development in the sense that we’re dealing with different floor numbers, we’re dealing with different configurations, different hotel rooms, different parts than what had previously been the case.

51. The respondent cited the many and varied changes being put before the Tribunal until the date of the final hearing: I won't put a number of how many times those plans have changed but we have a set of plans that was provided this morning. There were plans served last week. There were plans served in October and there were original 41 plans served also in July or early August at least anyway.

52. The respondent submitted that the nature and extent of changes effectively made the application completely different, concluding ‘when considering the extent of changes and the degree to which that ceases to be something that is appropriately 42 conditioned and something that is a substantial amendment’.

53. The Tribunal was persuaded by the Applicant’s submissions that changes subject to conditions can only be refused if they result in a completely different

37 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 25 lines 26–38 38 Respondent’s written submissions dated 25 August 2025 at [38(c)] 39 Transcript of hearing, 8 December 2025, page 245, lines 8–9 40 Transcript of hearing, 8 December 2025, page 245, lines 37–41 41 Transcript of hearing, 8 December 2025, page 245 lines 22–25 42 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 26 lines 9–12 application.

54. The Tribunal did not agree with the respondent that the number of changes in the updated proposal was sufficient for it to be deemed a de facto ‘amendment’. The Tribunal considered that the exhibits and submissions, though numerous did serve to clarify matters of compliance and the potential for conditions to ensure a compliant development outcome.

55. The Tribunal noted that section 165(3) of the PDA provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of conditions to which applications may be subject for approval, several of which were reflective of the conditional changes proposed for the updated development.

56. The Tribunal considered that the proposed changes do not amount to a completely different application. The changes made address compliance issues raised by the authority and entities in the reconsidered NoD (these are addressed elsewhere in this statement). The proposal remains a mixed-use hotel, residential and commercial development that includes demolition, basement carparking, driveway verge crossing, landscaping and associated works. Finality and certainty

57. The Respondent submitted that the alterations should not be approved as they had the effect of making the application insufficiently certain and offend against the 43 principle of finality.

58. The applicant stated that: what has actually happened here is with several problems being identified, those problems being capable of rectification by a condition, we have - the applicant has produced a series of plans so that the condition is more easy to specify’ … (and with respect to finality) … ‘It's just simply a proposal that, if you were inclined to impose particular conditions, plans have been provided to facilitate you being able to do so. And to avoid any issue of problems of finality, because every development application is approval to a set of plans, and if you were imposing a condition saying do away with plan, you know, 1,020, version 5, and substitute - you can have approval, so long as you have 1,020, version 6, then it's just as certain as it would have been if it had been approved on the basis of version 5 in the first

43 Respondent’s written submission dated 25 August 2025 at [37] referencing Griffith Narrabundah Community Association v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2023] ACAT 13 at [33(b)] 44 place.

59. The Tribunal agrees. The Tribunal considered that based on the current evidence before it, the updated proposal did not give rise to uncertainty of outcome or concern that the imposed conditions in the decision would result in unforeseen non-compliance in other respects. The Tribunal was satisfied that the changes proposed and the associated conditions would operate to make the development compliant and will not result in a significantly different or fundamentally altered development.

The grounds for refusal of the reconsidered application within the NoD under the Territory Plan 2008 (the Plan) and the PDA

60. The Tribunal had before it multiple exhibits from the applicant including but not limited to updated versions of the architectural drawings for the proposal by 45 Fender Katsalidis (FK). The ‘final’ updated FK plans, together with updated versions of the Oculus landscape plans and of the Sellick civil engineering 46 drawing, incorporated changes made to address issues raised in the reconsidered application or identified and resolved (in part) during the hearings. Summaries of 47 some of these changes were also provided at the hearing.

61. The Tribunal appreciates that there were non-compliant provisions identified in the original decision that were still considered by the Authority as non-compliant in the reconsidered application, as well as additional provisions deemed non- 48 compliant in the latter assessment.

62. The Tribunal generally focused its consideration on non-compliance or inconsistencies identified in the reconsidered refusal. These matched those raised in documents provided to the Tribunal including the respondent’s ‘Statement of

44 Transcript of hearing, 8 December 2025, page 234 lines 43–46; page 235 lines 18–25 45 Exhibit A18 updated version of the Fender Katsalidis DA drawings that replaced Exhibit A7 (exhibit AM6 revision 6) 46 Exhibit A11 and Exhibit A7 respectively 47 Exhibit A19 FK ‘changes list’ dated 5 December 2025; Exhibit A20 email dated 7 December 2025 from Drew Buckley Clayton Utz solicitor) to Salman Tahir (ACT government solicitor) of incorporated changes associated including that of the witness statement of Alex McLennan; Exhibit A21 annotated explanation of changes on DA1000 rev 06 dated 24 November 2025 and tabled on 8 December 2025; and ExhibitA22 figs 1 & 2 additional hotel short stay parking opportunities and hotel short stay spaces/drop off and pick-up tabled on 8 December 2025. 48 T 40 Findings’, the applicant’s and respondent’s submissions, witness statements, exhibits and evidence given at the hearings.

63. Where the Tribunal has referenced issues as ‘not pressed’ in this statement of reasons, it has relied on the Respondent’s Closing Submissions. The submission 49 includes a table of issues that remained in dispute at the close of the Hearing. 50 The submission noted that: the Tribunal has identified that there are several matters of non-compliance with the Territory Plan 2008 (repealed), as set out in the NoD on Reconsideration … to the extent that those matters in the NoD on Reconsideration at TD 40-49 differ from the matters above … (in the respondent’s table) … the Authority does not press any issue in respect of those matters

64. The NoD dated 5 May 2025 found that the proposal was inconsistent with the Plan in particular the following sections of the BPMC, CZDC, MUHDC, and General Codes PVAGC, ETFGC, AMGC, CPTEDGC, and WSUD and the 51 objectives f), g), and i) of the CZ3 Services Zone.

65. BPMC namely: (a) R11/C11 – Building heights (i) The refusal noted that C11 does not apply to the site but that R11(i) mandates the maximum building height to be the lesser of six storeys and 23 m. At the time of refusal, the proposal was ground plus five storeys and an attic level – effectively seven storeys. Whilst the development at that time was under 23 m on average, a ‘minor’ roof encroachment was noted along the north-east side. The material consideration however was that the proposal did not meet the Plan 52 definitions for ‘attic’ having regard to the pitch of the roof. (ii) The final proposal before the Tribunal eliminated the attic level

49 Respondent’s Closing Submission dated 8 December 2026 at [9(a)]–[9(v)]. A few of the issues nominated were not identified in the NoD as key inconsistencies with the relevant development and general codes (T 40–48) but were considered as related to others that were. E.g. CZDC R63 applies to waste generation from the development and was addressed in consideration of the waste management plan. 50 Respondent’s closing submission dated 8 December 2026 at [10]–[11] 51 T 40–47 (NOD) 52 T 40 (NOD) resulting in a six-storey development and a resultant reduction in the 53 total number of units in the proposal. This matter was not pressed. The Tribunal considers that R11(i) is satisfied by the removal of the 54 attics.

66. CZDC namely: (a) C 9 – wind: (i) The refusal noted that the wind assessment report required for compliance “prepared by a suitably qualified person” had not been 55 provided. A wind assessment report was provided during the 56 hearings. The matter was not pressed. The Tribunal considers that this criterion is met. (b) C14 – landscaping: (i) The refusal noted that the proposed zero setback did not provide opportunity for landscaping around the buildings, or planting ‘of appropriate scale’ to the road reserve and would detract from ‘the overall visual harmony of the area’; that planting of the central courtyard was not ‘proportionate to the scale of the development’; the lack of relationship with parks in the vicinity; and that the removal of 57 mature street trees was not supported. The Tribunal noted that the proposal ‘was not for a proposed development that will affect a registered tree or declared site’ and that the Conservator for Flora and 58 Fauna had ‘supported the application subject to conditions’. (ii) Ms Peta Miskovich (the consultant landscape architect for the project) provided a witness statement that included responses to assessment

53 Exhibit A18 Fender Katsalidis documents (drawings) which replaced Exhibit A7 Annexure AM6 (Statement of Alex McLennan dated 25 November 2025) 54 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2026 addressed issues for determination. Prior to the Hearing a list of issues in dispute was provided by the Authority in the document MF and noted that the Tribunal had heard evidence in respect of each of these 55 T 41 (NOD) 56 Exhibit A14 Environmental Wind Assessment authored by J. Kostas MEL Consultants dated 5 August 2025 57 T 41 (NOD) 58 Statement of Findings dated 18 June 2025 at [67] and [58] respectively; and T 52(3) comments made by the TCCS together with an updated set of 59 landscape drawings. The Tribunal also considered the witness statement and evidence of Mr Niclesse Mariette, the town planning 60 consultant for the proposal. (iii) The Tribunal considered that collectively this evidence supported credible changes to the design to address the landscape issues identified in the NoD and the requirements of Criterion 14 including with the introduction of a 3.5 m setback to the ground level boundary; 61 the retention of 11 trees; some deep soil plantings and enhancements with new trees and verge plantings; sufficient space for street trees to grow to maturity; increased separation between buildings at the middle from approximately 12.7 m up to 16.8 m to provide more generous public space at ground level; the addition of a glass canopy over the courtyard for weather protection and increased amenity; landscaping to improve the interface with public land and complement the streetscape ;and defined pedestrian links to Ibbott Lane, Market Lane and to the Capital Food Markets and the associated small communal park. The issue was not pressed. The Tribunal considers that this criterion is met. (c) R18 and R66 – easements: (i) R18 provides that buildings do not encroach over easements or rights of way. R66 requires a proposed encroachment be approved in writing by the relevant service provider. MUHDC R100 also mandates the latter approval requirement. The refusal noted that the entity (Icon Water) had not given support for the encroachment of the development over an existing major water easement for a stormwater main (of some 7 m wide with a 1200 mm diameter) running from Belconnen Way across Ibbott Lane in the southeast to Ibbott Lane in

59 Exhibit A11 (with exhibits PM 1–PM 2) Statement of Peta Miskovich, Associate Director, Oculus: Landscape Architecture + Urban Design dated 25 November 2025 60 A9 and A10 Statements of Niclesse Mariette, Director Canberra Town Planning dated 27 July 2025 and 26 August 2025 respectively and his expert evidence before the Tribunal on 3 December 2025 61 Exhibit A11, exhibit PM2 drawing 7 tree management and removal plan the northeast (a major utility installation) and traversing the 62 northwestern part of the site. (ii) Among the associated issues raised at the hearing, the Tribunal heard that the development would require relocation of the easement off-site, with debate as to whether this had been evident in the DA assessment vis a vis whether the DA drawings had made extinguishment and relocation sufficiently clear, and extinguishment 63 of the easement in the Crown Lease. (iii) The parties adjourned to seek clarification on the matter. Subsequently, it was generally agreed that based on stormwater plans issued with the witness statements of Alex McLennan (the engineer with primary carriage of civil engineering for the development), the 64 stormwater line was always proposed to be relocated to Ibbott Lane. Relocation would be subject to consideration by TCCS as a separate project and as the installation would not be ‘on the block’, it was 65 therefore not a prohibited development provision. (iv) The Applicant submitted that Icon Water had agreed to the ‘encroachment’ on the easement giving its ‘in-principle’ design acceptance (not approval) and that this would be subject to 66 conditions. At the hearing Mr Mariette expressed the opinion that in the ACT planning context, ‘design acceptance’ was ‘a term reserved for referral entities’ and that in his understanding ‘that’s referring to detailed design that typically happens after the DA 67 process has occurred’. The applicant also noted that the extinguishment or removal of the easement within the Crown Lease

62 Exhibit R3 63 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 30 lines 35–47; page 31 lines 1–36; page 32 lines 3–17 64 Exhibit A7 (with annexures AM1–AM7) Statement of Alex McLennan, Director and Civil Engineer, Sellick Consultants Pty Ltd dated 25 November 2025, Annexure AM 7 pages 8 and 9 65 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 34 lines 43–47; page 35 lines 1–41; page 36 lines 1–3 66 Exhibit A16 Supplementary Witness Statement of Geoffrey Shaw Partner Clayton Utz dated 31 October 2025 Annexure A 67 Transcript of hearing, 4 December 2025, page 111 lines 41-44 could be subject to a condition such that the DA approval not come 68 into effect until the lease had been so varied. The respondent submitted that whilst neither Icon Water or TCCS had ‘expressly approved’ the encroachment, that if the DA was approved, this must 69 be subject to conditions. The Tribunal considered that conditions could be imposed to meet the requirements for express approval. (d) R20/C20 – access: (i) This rule relates to loading dock and vehicular access to street frontages and is pertinent to the management of waste. The refusal noted co-location of loading and waste facilities with the height of the facility appearing to be insufficient for ‘all types of loading/unloading vehicles’; the width of the verge crossing to Ibbott Lane given the adjacent access for waste and for basement parking; the resultant visual impact dominating the streetscape (given the zero setback) with associated safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and the lack of 70 entity support (TCCS). (ii) Evidence before the Tribunal included Mr McLennan’s witness statement with updated civil drawings and exhibits for the DA including waste plans, waste management report (in accordance with the Development Control Code for Best Practice Waste Management in the ACT 2019), the response to comments by TCCS (emailed 22 71 October 2025), and associated revised architectural drawings. Mr McLennan noted in his witness statement that in his opinion these documents ‘fully address the matters raised by TCCS in relation to 72 waste management’ for the DA. (iii) Mr McLennan gave compelling evidence before the Tribunal related to his statement including information regarding waste vehicle types, sweep paths and clearances and operational considerations.

68 Outline of submissions on behalf of the Applicant dated 8 December 2025 at [25] 69 Respondent’s closing submissions dated 8 December 2025 at [9(e)] 70 T 41 (NOD) 71 Exhibit A7 (with exhibits AM1, AM4; AM 5 and AM6) dated 25 November 2025 72 Exhibit A7 witness statement page 3 of 4 (iv) The Tribunal was also provided with advice that TCCS had reviewed Mr McLennan’s witness statement including his response to their comments and supported those responses subject to conditions including for ‘remote card access … to prevent residents from 73 accessing the waste enclosure’. (v) The Tribunal considered that matters associated with the street frontage and safety had also been considered with the recess of the waste roller shutter door, in the varied landscape proposals, in particular the setback change from zero to 3.5 m along Ibbott Lane, 74 and the proposed tree and verge plantings. This matter was not pressed, other than how it related to R62 (not referenced as a key inconsistency in the NoD) requiring endorsement by TCCS for goods loading and unloading facilities. The Tribunal considered that such requirements could be addressed with conditions. (e) R23 – potentially noisy uses: (i) The refusal noted that the development includes hotel rooms and other potentially noisy uses; that the required updated Noise Management Plan (NMP) had not been provided; and that the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) did not support the 75 ‘proposal at this stage’. The same comments are mirrored in the refusal under MUHDC R67 for noise attenuation – external sources. (ii) A DA NMP prepared by ‘a suitably qualified person’ was provided 76 to the Tribunal during the hearings. (iii) The Tribunal was also provided with correspondence from the EPA advising their endorsement of the NMP ‘on the basis all assumptions and recommendations included in the report must be incorporated

73 Exhibit A25 email from Tim Wyatt, senior director development planning, City and Environment Directorate, to Drew Buckley solicitor dated 8 December 2025; and Exhibit A21 annotated drawing DA1000 rev 06 with proposed remote card access provisions. 74 Exhibit A11 (exhibit PM2) 75 T 41 (NOD) 76 Exhibit A13 DA Noise Management Plan authored by Andrew Pham of Acoustic Logic dated 4 August 2025 77 into the final building construction and design’. The NMP was not 78 pressed. The Tribunal considered that with conditions this rule would be met. (f) R35 – hazardous materials survey: (i) The refusal noted that a hazardous materials survey (the survey) had not been provided for demolition, including of existing buildings and 79 that the EPA did not support the ‘proposal at this stage’. (ii) There are no existing buildings remaining on the site. This was evident from the site visit. A concrete slab remains on the site. (iii) The Tribunal was provided with correspondence from the EPA acknowledging that preparation of the survey could not be done as the ‘structures had already been demolished without planning 80 approval by the former Crown lessee’. (iv) The Tribunal also heard evidence related to potential contamination of the site (relevant to R71) becoming apparent with demolition of the slab and removal of materials from the site. (v) The respondent submitted that ‘if the DA was approved this … (R34 81 and R35) … must be subject to conditions’. (vi) On balance, the Tribunal considered that such a scenario could be subject to conditions for EPA endorsement prior to works commencing, including for demolition (relevant to R34); and a preliminary site investigation addressing soils to be removed; as well as an erosion control concept plan (relevant to R70 and mirrored in MUHDC R103). (g) R37A – shops – floor area limit for CZ2 and CZ3:

77 Exhibit A16 Supplementary Witness Statement of Geoff Shaw (Clayton Utz) dated 31 October 2025 and lodged 3 November 2025, Annexure C email from Rodney Dix EPA to Drew Buckley solicitor dated 23 September 2025 78 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2026 at [9] 79 T 42 (NOD) 80 Exhibit A1 email from David Power EPA to Geoff Shaw (Clayton Utz) dated 1 November 2025 81 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2026 at [9(h)] (i) The refusal acknowledged that whilst tenancies had not been finalised 2 one exceeded the mandatory 200 m maximum gross floor area for a 2 supermarket or shop selling food by 37 m and two others on the ground floor were so designed to suggest that they could be combined 82 into one non-compliant tenancy. The matter was not pressed. The reconfigured ground floor plan before the Tribunal illustrated that all tenancies (even the two that could be combined) would not exceed the rule. (h) R64 relates to post-occupancy waste management facilities to be endorsed by TCCS (TAMS) and is mirrored in MUHDC R99. The refusal noted that 83 TCCS had not supported the ‘proposal at this stage’. The Tribunal noted advice received at the hearing that TCCS had reviewed Mr McLennan’s witness statement regarding waste (including his response report to their 84 former comments) and supported those responses subject to conditions. The respondent submitted that ‘if the DA was approved this must be subject 85 to conditions’. The Tribunal considered that the matter had been considered and could be subject to conditions. (i) R 66 – utilities: (i) This rule relates to easement encroachment and requires approval in writing from the relevant service provided i.e. Icon Water. MUHDC R100 also mandates the latter approval requirement. This rule mirrors the same issues as for R18 for easements. (see above at [66(c)]). The respondent submitted that ‘if the DA was approved this must be 86 subject to conditions’. The Tribunal considered that the matter could be subject to conditions. (j) R 67 – utilities: (i) This rule requires a ‘statement of compliance’ from each relevant utility provider (for water, sewerage, electricity, stormwater and gas)

82 T 42 (NOD) 83 T 42 (NOD) 84 A25 page 3 dated 8 December 2025 85 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2026 at [9(o)] 86 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2026 at [9(e)] and is mirrored in MUHDC R101. (ii) Support with conditions was given to the reconsidered DA by Evo-energy (electricity and gas). Icon Water did not support the 87 proposal at that time. (iii) The Tribunal had before it evidence of ‘in principle design acceptance’ to the ‘revised’ development from Icon Water related to 88 water supply and sewerage standards. (iv) The respondent submitted that ‘if the DA was approved this must be 89 subject to conditions’. The Tribunal considered that with conditions this rule could be met. (k) R60 requires that multi-unit housing or residential components of commercial mixed use comply with the residential zones of the MUHDC. The NoD refusal considered that the proposal did not fully comply with certain provisions of the MUHDC. (see [67])

67. MUHDC namely: (a) R29/C29 – front boundary setbacks: (i) The development is on a corner block. The refusal noted that the zero-setback proposed in the reconsidered proposal did not comply with the rule for minimum front boundary setbacks to ensure that corner blocks maintain appropriate distances from the street; that the development encroaches upon all front setbacks; and that assessment against C29 was required. The NoD did not find that the development achieved ‘consistency with the desired character of the area’ (although this was not described) and that in particular it did not meet the requirements of C29(b) ‘reasonable amenity for residents’ and C29(c) ‘sufficient space for street trees to grow.’ The NoD also noted that the (then) 23 m tall building adjacent to 1.5 m footpath with no landscaping buffer was not considered a good streetscape outcome,

87 T 88 and T 107 (NOD) 88 A16 Annexure A, Icon Water letter from Nabin Dahal to Sellick Consultants dated 22 October 2025 89 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2026 at [9(k)] and that there was no ‘buffer’ for vehicles exiting the basement 90 parking with associated ‘potential safety issues’. (ii) To address these issues and others (including landscape) the proposal before the Tribunal introduced a 3.5 m setback at the ground level on all frontages with additional trees and landscape plantings (see above at [66(b)]) and had regard to safety considerations (see above at [66(d)]). (iii) The respondent submitted that the building setback was a “matter for 91 identification by the Tribunal”. The Tribunal considered the Plan’s definition of ‘desired character’ as ‘the form of development in terms of siting, building bulk and scale, and the nature of the resulting streetscape that is consistent with the relevant zone objectives, and 92 any statement of desired character in a relevant precinct code’. The BMPC references ‘desired character’ under C16 for developments of eight storeys or more in height and applies primarily to town centre settings. Regardless, the proposed development is six storeys. The BMPC definition for ‘active frontages’ includes ground level facades adjoining public space as encouraging pedestrian interaction ‘through display windows, public entrances, shop front and the like’. The development has commercial tenancies at ground level and laneway access to the street frontages. The Tribunal also considered CZDC element 12 ‘intent’ for buildings to ‘create a diverse, lively and attractive character … [and] … safe and interlinked pedestrian environment to support active living’, and that the zone objectives were met relevantly in regard to the public realm (see [70(iv)] and [70(v)]). (iv) On balance, the Tribunal considered that the bulk and scale of the development, the 3.5 m ground level setback, ground floor uses, central courtyard, laneway pedestrian access to Ibbott Lane and Market lane, and streetscape and other landscaping will achieve all

90 T42 (NOD) 91 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2026 at [9(q)] 92 Territory Plan 2023, Dictionary page 21 three C29 requirements contributing to the desired character, providing reasonable amenity for residents, and sufficient space for street trees to grow to maturity. (b) R58/C58 – solar access – apartments: (i) The rule requires that 70% of apartments receive a minimum of three hours of direct sunlight between 9am–3pm on the winter solstice. The refusal noted ‘many apartments’ would receive solar access primarily to the principal private open space or winter garden, and/or marginal solar access to the habitable daytime living areas. It was also noted that many inward facing apartments (to the central courtyard) would 93 not receive any direct solar access. (ii) The respondent submitted that this was a matter for identification by the Tribunal. The proposal before the Tribunal reduced the number of apartments (from 257 to 185). This included the replacement of many inward facing apartments with hotel rooms (135 rooms). Evidence included drawings showing that the solar access requirements had 94 been met. Skylights were also included to level 5 apartments (an inconsistency by omission between drawings was corrected during 95 the hearing assuring the inclusion of skylights). The Tribunal was satisfied that solar access requirements had been met. (c) R61/C61 – privacy: (i) This requirement applies to dwellings on the same block. The refusal noted that the proposal ‘appears to have limited direct overlooking impacts’ and that although the internal separation (at that time) ‘exceeds the 12m limit … there … still appears to be some potential overlooking to bedrooms/living areas/POS from POS of some apartments’ (emphasis added). The refusal also referenced some overlooking of apartments by hotel rooms and concluded that ‘the

93 T 43 (NOD) 94 Exhibit A18 DA7001 – DA7005; and Exhibit A4 Belconnen Markets Stage 2, Ibbott Land Belconnen 2616 Supplementary Pack pages 12–13 dated XX December 2025 95 Transcript of hearing, 4 December 2025, pages 118–119; and Exhibit A20 changes to DA1006 and DA7005 privacy and amenity of the residents still remain as an issue that needs 96 resolution’. The matter was not pressed. (ii) The Tribunal considered that these issues were addressed through the proposed reconfiguration of the floor plans, including the reduction in apartments, minimisation of apartments fronting the internal open core of the development and replaced by a concentration of hotel rooms. Other changes advised in the applicant’s submission were noted including the introduction of opaque glass at the end of corridors on levels 1–5 and the recess of discrete hotel windows (on 97 these levels) to mitigate direct lines of sight to apartments. (d) R61/C61 – principal private open space (PPOS): (i) This requires “at least one area” of PPOS for each dwelling such that it achieves stated requirements. The refusal referenced the criteria and concluded that the revised proposal before it (at that time) ‘still lacks full compliance’ citing some balcony sizes not being proportionate to dwelling size, compromising use for relation/recreation, and not 98 achieving ‘reasonable solar access’. The applicant submitted that the proposal before the Tribunal met the requirements of the rule 99 (R61(a)–(e)(ii)). The matter was not pressed. The Tribunal considered the issues had been addressed. (e) C66 – ventilation: (i) The criterion seeks to ensure natural ventilation to habitable rooms ‘by cross or stack effect ventilation by maximising separation between opening windows’ (for buildings of three or more dwellings). The refusal noted that very few apartments would receive 100 such ventilation and would rely on mechanical ventilation. The applicant submitted that the updated proposal before the Tribunal ‘will ensure natural ventilation. Separation between opening

96 T 43 (NOD) 97 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [116] 98 T 43 (NOD) 99 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [122] 100 T 43 (NOD) 101 windows has been maximised to achieve this outcome’. The matter was not pressed. The Tribunal considered the criterion had been appropriately addressed. (f) R67 – Noise attenuation – external sources: (i) This rule requires that compliance is demonstrated by a NMP (for other than traffic noise). The NoD refusal noted that a NMP had not been provided with the reconsidered application and that EPA support 102 had not been given ‘at this stage’. This mirrors the issues addressed for the CZDC R23 (see above at [66(e)]. (g) R82/C82 and R83/C83 – visitor parking: (i) These requirements apply to visitor parking on the site. The refusal noted that no visitor parking spaces were provided on site and that 103 TCCS did not support the proposed parking arrangements. 2 (ii) The previous DA Gross Floor Area (GFA) was 31,956 m . The proposed number of carparks for the entire development was 391 spaces (a shortfall of ten spaces). The NoD noted that there was no allocation of the parking spaces for different uses and no motorcycle parking spaces. Visitor parking was proposed to be off-site. 2 (iii) The updated development proposal before the Tribunal has 28,132 m GFA (reflecting the reduced development yield) with 376 basement 104 car spaces (including 24 ‘disabled’ spaces), 324 bike spaces 105 (including 58 on the ground floor with 29 racks for short stay) and 106 26 motorbike spaces. (iv) Evidence before the Tribunal included the independent witness statement of Mr Coath (transport engineer and transport planner),

101 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [127] 102 T 44 (NoD) 103 T 44 (NOD) 104 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [168(c)] 105 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [174] 106 Exhibit A4 page 13 and Exhibit A7(a) drawing DA0006 (rev 06); and Exhibit A7 (exhibit AM6 (to statement of Alex McLennan dated 25 November 2025) who had reviewed and provided his response to correspondence from 107 TCCS dated 22 October 2025 for the DA. His summary of opinion noted that ‘on-site parking … ha[s] been provided in excess of the requirements of the PVAGC’ and that ‘bicycle parking … ha[s] been 108 provided in excess of the requirements of the ETFGC’. (v) Mr Coath gave compelling evidence before the Tribunal including observations made at his site visit (undertaken after submitting his witness statement) about development across the road from the 109 property, observations of traffic peaks and networks, and his professional experience with developments in Belconnen and 110 elsewhere in Canberra. (vi) The Tribunal also considered the traffic and parking assessment prepared by Indesco related to the new development yield and associated parking split between residential, hotel, and commercial 111 uses. (vii) The assessment included consideration of TCCS Engineering Advisory Note 14 related to traffic generation for multi-unit developments “in the vicinity of town centres”, and to the PVAGC noting requirements for visitor parking on-site or within 200 m. (viii) Issues related to the proximity of ‘disabled’ parking and hotel drop-off and pick-up were raised by the respondent during the hearing. The applicant tabled marked up floor plans proposing to reconfigure and illustrate how this would be addressed

107 Exhibit A17 page 20; A17 witness statement of Christopher Andrew Coath, Stanec Australia Pty Ltd dated 25 November 2025 (exhibit CAC-1 response to TCCs comments dated 24 November 2025). It is noted that the respondent objected to two statements pertaining to or suggesting ‘conditions of approval’ be struck from the statement that were not pressed by the applicant (transcript of hearing dated 4 December 2025 pages 178–180) 108 Exhibit A17 exhibit CAC-1 page 20 109 Transcript of hearing, 4 December 2025, page 182 line 41 to page 187 line 39; page 193 line 37 to page 194 line 2 110 Transcript of hearing, 4 December 2025, page 181 lines 41–45 111 Exhibit A15 Indesco memorandum, attachment C ‘traffic and parking statement’ dated 5 August 2025 112 satisfactorily. (ix) The Tribunal was provided with email correspondence from TCCS advising their review of Mr Coath’s transport evidence statement dated 24 November 2025 and confirming that ‘adequate car parking and bicycle parking have been provided in accordance with the PVAGC and the ETFGC … [and noting that] … it is understood that car parking allocation can be finalised through a Car Park Management Plan’. Based on this review TCCS considered that ‘any outstanding issues related to parking and traffic can be resolved through conditional approval of the development.’ TCCS agreed ‘that an updated, calibrated and validated SIDRA model, together with an assessment of any mitigation measures related to signal phasing and 113 timings, can be placed as a condition of development approval’. (x) The Tribunal considered that issues related to R82/C82 and R83/C8 and to the PVAGC had been addressed and could be subject to conditions. (h) R85/C85 – delivery and removalist vans: (i) This applies to developments of 40 or more dwellings and requires ‘at least one’ short stay parking space and access for delivery trucks and removalist vans. The refusal noted operational inconvenience issues with the co-located waste and loading area and that such a space/access had not been designated. The Indesco memorandum dated 5 August 2025 (see above at [67(g)]) cited Table 5.1 of the Guide to Transport Impact Assessment (2024) noting that ‘service vehicle parking should consider an adequate number of loading docks 114 … to prevent queueing or conflicts on the road network’. The applicant contended that this matter had been addressed. The matter was not pressed. (ii) The Tribunal did not consider that a definitive position had been

112 Exhibit A22 figures 1 and 2 (hotel short stay parking opportunities) 113 Exhibit A25 dated 8 December 2025 114 Exhibit A15 page 5 at [5.7] presented regarding this rule/criterion. However, the TCCS response on parking with reference to the requirements for a Car Park 115 Management Plan and Operational Management Plan was considered sufficient to address the issue through conditions. (i) R55/C55 – minimum dwelling sizes: (i) One studio apartment on level 5 of the development was shown as 2 2 being 39 m , short of the minimum 40 m required by the rule. This matter was raised as an ‘observation’ and ‘inconsistency’ in the 116 reconsidered NoD and by the respondent during the hearing and in 117 closing submissions. The Respondent submitted that this was a 118 matter for identification by the Tribunal. (ii) The Tribunal had regard to the evidence of Mr Mariette that one square metre ‘was unlikely to be a significant imposition to not meeting the rule’ and that in his opinion the studio apartment would provide ‘functional living space and the ability to accommodate what 119 needed to be under the criterion’. 2 (iii) The Tribunal notes that the studio is shown as 40m on levels 1-4 and 2 only as 39m on level 5. Given the floor plan programming it is 120 possible that the level 5 metric is simply an error. The Tribunal considered that the criterion was met.

68. General Codes namely: (a) PVAGC and the ETFGC: (i) The PVAGC provides for vehicular access and parking, and the ETFGC for end of trip facilities including showers, change rooms and lockers. (ii) The NoD parking issues were addressed in applicant submissions,

115 Exhibit A25 116 T 47 (NOD) 117 Respondent’s closing submissions dated 8 December 2025 at [9] tables 118 Respondent’s closing submissions dated 8 December 2026 at [9(s)] 119 Transcript of hearing, 4 December 2025, page 111 lines 16–22 120 A18 DA1001–DA1005 exhibits and evidence during the hearing. The Tribunal was confident that access and parking could be satisfied with conditions (see above at [67(g)]). (iii) The NoD noted that ETFG facilities had not been provided in the proposal and that ‘it is stated that these facilities are to be considered in the final design’ and commented on the lack of clarity regarding 121 personal storage facilities. (iv) The Tribunal had before it evidence of the 324 bicycle parking spaces provided in the updated proposal and Mr Coath’s evidence that ‘bicycle parking … have been provided in excess of the requirements 122 of the ETFGC’. (v) The applicant referenced the updated ground floor and basement bike parking spaces and basement end-of-trip facilities for showers, change rooms unisex facilities and personal storage relevant to the 123 ETFGC rules 20-23 (for shower and change facilities). The matter was not pressed. The Tribunal considered that the requirements of ETFGC are met in the updated proposal. (b) AMGC: (i) This code generally specifies access needs for people with disabilities within developments including buildings and facilities. The NoD noted the Accessibility Report by Code Point Building Consultancy (dated 7 February 2025) but identified matters that required further ‘assessment’ including parking provisions and identifiable continuous accessible paths of travel. The applicant’s submission referenced drawings that demonstrated the continuous path of travel; the provision of adaptable apartments, and provision of disability 124 parking spaces. The NOD acknowledged that ‘accessibility details 125 will be considered and confirmed at the building Approval stage’.

121 T 45 (NOD) 122 Exhibit A17 exhibit CAC-1 page 20 123 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [174]–[175] 124 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [179] 125 T 46 (NOD) The matter was not pressed. The Tribunal considered that issues had been or could be appropriately addressed. (c) CPEDGC: (i) This code outlines specific requirements for crime prevention through environmental design. The NoD cited that the proposal was ‘generally compliant’ with the exception of safety concern with the storage and bicycle parking areas having only one access for entry and exit as ‘potential entrapment areas’ that required further 126 consideration. The applicant referenced change to the updated 127 proposal to provide for two access points. The matter was not pressed. The Tribunal considered that issues had been appropriately addressed. (d) WSUD: (i) This code seeks outcomes in relation to water sensitive urban design primarily through targets for mains water reduction, water quality, and stormwater quantity. The refusal noted that an updated WSUD spreadsheet and calculations had not been provided, the central area open to the sky reducing the total roof area, and the location of the proposed water tank not being identified. The applicant contended that the updates would have ‘negligible impact’ on the WSUD report calculations and that drawings had been updated for the tank 128 locations. The matter was not pressed. The Tribunal considered that issues had been appropriately addressed.

69. Consideration by Territory entities of the proposed changes: (a) Section 120 (f) of the PDA requires the decision maker to consider entity advice on an application. Section 148 requires the ‘Planning and Land Authority’ to refer a development application to an entity prescribed by regulation. Section 149 requires entities to provide their advice to the Authority within 15 working days. Section 150 provides that a failure by

126 T 46; T119 (NOD) 127 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [185] 128 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025 at [191]–[192] the entity to provide advice within this timeframe will be taken as support of the application. The Tribunal notes that the Authority appropriately referred the DA, and that entity advice was received and considered in the assessment towards refusal of the reconsidered DA. (b) The NoD stated that TCCS, EPA, and Icon Water did not support the 129 proposal ‘at this stage’. The various reasons for that lack of support are relevantly described at [65]–[66] above. So too is the additional evidence of the review by these entities of the updated proposal before the Tribunal. (c) The Conservator of Flora and Fauna, ACT Emergency Services Agency, ACT Health and Protection Services, and Evo Energy all generally gave 130 conditional support. (d) The applicant drew attention to the current responses by the entities with regard to the easement encroachment and to Icon Water’s ‘in principle design acceptance’ nominating that ‘certification’ was not required for the DA but rather was reserved for the preparation of detailed design and 131 review; the TCCS conditional support for tree management, traffic and 132 parking, all subject to conditions; and EPA responses for the NMP, 133 hazardous waste, and demolition. (e) The respondent submitted that ‘if the DA is approved’ it must be subject to conditions for TCCS’ agreement to encroachment of the easement; demolition and relocation of the stormwater pipe; goods loading and unloading facilities; the management of construction waste and other waste operational issues; EPA endorsement of the demolition plan, a sediment and erosion control concept plan, and endorsement of a preliminary site investigation; and Icon Water endorsement including for estate services and 134 certificate(s) of compliance.

129 T 51–53 (NOD) 130 T 51–53 (NOD) 131 Outline of Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant dated 8 December 2025 at [33]–[37]; A16 Annexure A 132 Exhibit A25 dated 8 December 2025 133 Exhibit A1; and Exhibit A13 134 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2025 at [9(e)]–[9(p)] and [9(u)]–[9(v)] (f) Having regard to Section 119(2) of the PDA the Tribunal considered that the applicant’s responses to issues raised by entities as part of the reconsidered DA were reasonable and appropriate, were evidenced in the updated drawings and reports by ‘suitably qualified persons’ and could be mandated for consistency with conditions. (g) NCDRP: (i) Section 120(e) of the PDA requires the decision-maker’s consideration of a DA in the merit track to include the advice of the NCDRP and the proponent’s response to that design advice. Proposals are considered by the NCDRP before they are lodged for DA assessment. The DA refusal assessed the DA as being 135 inconsistent with the advice of the NCDRP. (ii) The NCDRP considered the proposal on 23 May 2023 and issued its advice to the proponent on 7 June 2023. The panel thanked the proponent ‘for presenting … at this early design concept stage … [and noted] … the panel supports in principle the height and monumental nature of the proposed development; the mixed-use typology; and the mid-block laneway proposition’. (iii) The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Mariette that the panel’s advice related to ‘a concept which preceded the original development application which subsequently obviously preceded the reconsidered 136 application submission’. The Tribunal noted that the presentation package considered by the NCDRP included concepts by another 137 architect/s preceding the FK proposal. The proponent responded to 138 the NCDRP advice making some associated design changes. (iv) The NCDRP had recommended that ‘the proponent return for subsequent design review following consideration of the key issues 139 and recommendations listed’. This did not occur. However,

135 T 39 (NOD) 136 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 51 lines 11–14 137 Exhibit A2 Presentation package to the NCDRP dated 9 May 2023 138 Exhibit A3 Response to NCDRP – Session One dated September 23 139 T 203 Mr Mariette provided evidence of the Authority’s considerations of 140 the ‘revised proposal’ against the NCDRP recommendations. Mr Mariette’s witness statement included a comprehensive response to the remaining NCDRP recommendations that had been deemed 141 unsatisfactory in the NOD. He gave a summary of the changes evident in the proposal before the Tribunal to address the issues raised 142 by the NCDRP. These changes were illustrated in a graphic comparative analysis and development summary of the previous and 143 proposed DA scheme. (v) The Tribunal accepts that the proposal before the NCDRP in 2023 was at a very conceptual stage. The evidence shows that the proponent had regard to the advice of the panel and made associated changes to address their early comments and to address those made 144 by the Authority/NCDRP for the reconsidered application. In accordance with section 119(4) of the PDA the Tribunal considers that the proponent did respond to the design advice of the NCDRP and that the response evident in the updated proposal is satisfactory.

70. Zone objectives, suitability of the land and probable impact (a) Section 120 of the PDA provides that in deciding a development proposal in the merit track, the decision-maker must consider a number of discretionary factors including relevantly, the zone objectives (section 120(a)), the suitability of the land where the development is proposed (section 120(b)), and the probable impact of the proposed development (section 120(h). (b) The CZ3 Services Zone objectives apply. As a general principle, zone objectives do not operate as mandatory criteria but rather act to guide discretionary consideration relevant to the rules and codes. The NoD

140 Exhibit A10 para 7 page 2; and Annexure A (undated) 141 Exhibit A10 annexure B dated 31 October 2025 142 Transcript of hearing, 3 December 2025, page 58 line 27 to page 61 line 16 143 Exhibit A4 Belconnen Markets Stage 2, Ibbott lane, Belconnen 2612 Supplementary Pack dated December 2025 144 Exhibit A10 annexures A and B assessed the development as not being consistent with three of the nine CZ3 objectives: (i) CZ3 Objective (f): ‘undertake development using best practice environmentally sustainable development principles’. The refusal includes reference to solar access to apartments, cross stack/ventilation, and internal washer/dryer laundries (rather than external drying) resulting in the use of more electricity and no landscaping for shade. The updated proposal addresses solar access and ventilation (see above at paragraphs 67(b) and 67(e)) (ii) CZ3 Objective (g): ‘promote active living and active travel’. The refusal includes reference to the original zero setback, no playing facilities for children, and lack of short stay bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities. The updated proposal addresses setback and bicycle provisions (see above at paragraphs 66(b), 67(a) and 67(g)) (iii) CZ3 Objective (i) ‘provide a high quality public realm by facilitating active uses on ground floor level that connects with the wider open space, pedestrian and cycle networks to promote active travel and 145 active living’. The refusal includes reference to the central courtyard not attracting people to stop and mingle, no direct access to the Markets, and no bicycle racks in the courtyards. The updated proposal addresses landscaping with improvements to the central courtyard including a glass canopy to enhance amenity; retention of additional trees and other planting; pedestrian urban laneway connections to Ibbott Lane, Market Lane, the Food Markets and adjacent small park; and bicycle provisions (see above at paragraphs 146 66(b) and 67 (g)). The Tribunal noted that the ground floor plan incorporates primarily what are intended to be active commercial retail or amenity tenancies with interfaces to the street and 147 courtyard. There are also artworks proposed on the walls adjacent

145 T 46–47 (NOD) 146 Applicant’s written submission dated 28 July 2025, exhibit PM, Mr Mariette’s letter pages 131-133 and Exhibit A9 witness statement of Mr Mariette dated 26 August 2025 at [21]–[24] 147 Exhibit A18 DA1000 page 11 to the laneway links to the primary streets which would attract 148 interaction and socialisation. (iv) The Tribunal noted that Zone objectives which were not in contention included to ‘encourage a mix of land uses which contribute to an 149 active and diverse character’. The Tribunal considers that on balance the CZ3 objectives will be achieved in the updated proposal. (c) Suitability of the land relates to section 120(b) of the PDA. (i) The Tribunal does not accept the reasons given for refusal in the NoD that: some elements of the development are capable of assessment and potential approval. However, considering the cumulative impacts of the revised development, it is considered the 150 proposed development is not suitable for the site. (ii) Assuming these statements relate to issues of non-compliance with the Territory Plan, then for reasons given elsewhere in this decision, the issues have been addressed in the updated proposal. (iii) The Property is an area undergoing renewal. Having regard to the size of the site, the dense surrounding urban context of markets and retail shops, two new proposed/approved mixed-use developments of up to 151 10 storeys across Ibbott Lane to the east together with achieving code-compliance through conditions, the Tribunal considers that the land is suitable for the development as authorised by the varied lease. (d) Probable impact relates to section 120(h) of the PDA. (i) The NoD refusal did not support the development in consideration of probable impact because it was “assessed as having an impact on the surrounds as well as future occupants and users of the development

148 Exhibit A18 DA2005 page 22 149 CZ3 Service Zone objective (d) 150 T 49 (NOD) 151 Exhibit A9 para 10 and context diagram witness statement of Mr Mariette dated 26 August 152 which were not considered to be satisfactory”. (emphasis added) (ii) The Tribunal considered that it was not reasonable to assess impact on surrounds for sites and developments that may still be either under 153 DA consideration or unbuilt. (iii) Having regard to issues raised in the NoD under the Plan and general codes, the Tribunal noted that the updated proposal reduces the height of the development, the GFA and the number of residences, with an 154 associated decrease in parking and expected traffic generation. This effectively reduces probable negative impact. Reconfiguration of floor plates to improve solar access and enhance privacy address code requirements and improve future user amenity. The introduction of the ground plane building setback and increased landscaping, and positive laneway connections to surrounding developments will contribute to the streetscape and amenity of the precinct. (iv) Any development will have a level of impact. The Tribunal had regard to the nature, extent and significance of impact. The Tribunal considers that (in particular) the landscaping, commercial tenancies, and laneways proposed on the ground plane evident in the updated development will activate the area rather than give rise adverse probable impacts. On balance, the Tribunal noted that the site has been undeveloped for some time, that the precinct is undergoing renewal and considered that the development will support positive rejuvenation.

71. Whether the proposed changes warranted further public notification (a) Pursuant to section 156 of the PDA, the original DA was publicly notified in March 2024. Four representations were received. The representation received did not trigger referral to the Assessment Advisory Panel (AAP)

152 T 40 (NOD) 153 Exhibit A9 para 10 and context diagram witness statement of Mr Mariette dated 26 August 2025 154 Exhibit A15 Indesco memorandum, ‘traffic and parking statement’ part 4 page 2 dated 5 August 2025; and A25 email from Tim Wyatt, senior director development planning, City and Environment Directorate, to Drew Buckley solicitor, response to traffic and parking dated 8 December 2025 being less in number than 30. In March 2025, pursuant to section 193(5), the reconsidered application was referred to those four representers. No written responses were received. (b) The respondent referenced section 146(2) and section 144 of the PDA each 155 of which relate to amendments to development applications. As discussed above, the Tribunal does not consider the changes to the plans to have been an amendment for the purposes of those sections. The Tribunal also considers that issues pertinent to compliance could be addressed with conditions (see [74]). (c) The respondent contended that there had been no notification of the changes to the updated development before the Tribunal including ‘the change in 156 the hotel and unit mix’. (d) The key changes to the reconsidered application are outlined elsewhere in this document (see above at [38]). (e) During the hearing the respondent drew the attention of Mr Micalos (the authorised applicant for the development proposal) to examples in the documentation that formed part of the record of consultation that were 157 definitive about the type of commercial facilities that would be provided. The implication being that the public could not be confident about the nature of commercial tenancies now being proposed. 158 (f) The respondent put to Mr Micalos that: you'd agree that in relation to the original proposal that there are changes in the form of the removal of certain facilities that were the subject of the original decisions, namely the removal of the health and wellness facility and the medical centre. Do you agree with that? (g) Mr Micalos conceded that there was ‘no pool’ but regarding the other facilities responded: we haven't made a final decision. We've allocated commercial space in the revised proposal and we're just considering how that will be allocated. … [and] … There's commercial space that can be 155 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2025 at [9(b)] 156 Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 8 December 2025 at [9(b)] 157 T 990 and transcript of hearing, 4 December 2025, page 135 lines 13–35; page 136 lines 8–12 158 Transcript of hearing, 4 December 2025, page 136 lines 16–19 allocated to whatever use we want that is allowable under the Crown 159 lease. (h) The Tribunal noted that the gym, pool, and cinema (originally included in basements) had been highlighted as deleted in the reconsidered application and on the associated drawings which were subject to further notification 160 to the original representors. (i) The Tribunal had regard to the application description of the proposal and noted that this remained the same between the original and reconsidered 161 NOD. The commercial tenancies were described as ‘including healthcare and wellness facilities/gym, medical centre, home theatre’. There did not appear to be any evidence that this description was proposed to be changed in the updated proposal. The Tribunal accepts that types of commercial tenancies are not evident on drawings in the updated proposal. However, by way of example, the Tribunal noted that the notation on the ground floor plans between the original and reconsidered applications and those in the updated version remain substantially the same with tenancies designated as 162 ‘retail and/or amenity’, and with no prescribed commercial use. (j) As discussed above, the Tribunal considers that the proposed changes to the application and associated evidence before it does not amount to it becoming a completely different application. (see above at [56]). (k) The Tribunal also had regard to the existing and proposed dense urban context within which the development was proposed. The Tribunal agreed with the applicant that there was ‘no evidence of any particular adverse 163 issue’ emanating from the changes that would warrant further public notification. The updated changes primarily address concerns nominated by the Authority (and the entities) in the NoD and are intended to mitigate non-compliance issues. The changes would effectively result in an overall reduction in the impact of the development. Had the changes proposed

159 Transcript of hearing, 4 December 2025, page 136 lines 29–46 160 T 296 and T 501 DA5998 (rev03) ‘basement 1 public notification plan’ and as compared to the original notified drawings T 1475 DA0998 (rev01) 161 T 561 and T 37 (original and reconsidered NODs respectively) 162 T 280 (rev 03); T280 DA 1000 (rev 04); and Exhibit A18 DA1000 (rev06) page 11 163 Transcript of hearing, 8 December 2025, page 237 lines 29–30 increased probable adverse impact (see above at [70(d)]) or had the number of representations made in the original public notification required referral to the AAP and the four representors made negative comments (rather than none) on the reconsidered application, then public notification may have been warranted. (l) On balance, the Tribunal considered that the changes proposed do not necessitate or warrant further public notification.

72. Consistency with the Crown Lease purpose clause: (a) The respondent found issue with the inconsistency of the current Crown Lease with the proposed uses but accepted that the ‘decision approving the lease variation does permit the proposed uses’ albeit noting that ‘effect’ is dependent on the applicant/lessee meeting the conditions (of that decision). The respondent submitted that if the DA was approved it ‘must’ be subject 164 to associated conditions. (b) The NoD for the lease variation notes that changes to the Crown Lease do not commence including until the applicant/lessee lodges written evidence under section 165 of the PDA that TCCS support the proposal for the variation of the lease; that EPA has endorsed a NMP; that EPA is satisfied that the site has been assessed for possible contamination; and that EPA has 165 advised that the site is suitable for the proposed development. The respondent considered that these condition had not been satisfied and submitted that if the DA was approved it must be subject to associated 166 conditions. The applicant did not dispute this position. (c) Specific concerns were raised in relation to the extinguishment or removal of the stormwater easement within the Crown Lease. This issue is addressed elsewhere (see above at [66 (c)]). (d) The Tribunal noted the applicant’s position that the varied Crown Lease had not been registered because the proponent would have had to pay the

164 Respondents’ closing submissions dated 8 December 2025 at [9(c)] 165 Exhibit R1 NOD approval of variation to the lease subject to conditions of approval 2 (a)–(d) dated 11 October 2024 166 Transcript of hearing, 8 December 2025, page 237 lines 34–39 associated lease variation charge and (to date) had no level of certainty as 167 to outcome for the proposal. (e) The Tribunal considered that commencement of works vis a vis variation of the Crown lease could be subject to conditions. Conclusion and orders

73. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal was satisfied that pursuant to the section 68(3)(c)(i) of the ACAT Act, the Reviewable Decision should be set aside and substituted with a decision to approve subject to conditions.

74. The Conditions were made after considering the submissions of the applicant and the respondent on the drafting in accordance with the Tribunal In Chambers Order of 11 December 2025 to address the associated overview of decision. The parties whilst in general agreement did not reach agreement on some aspects of the conditions, notably with reference to the extent or timing of consultation with entities and associated approvals. On consideration the Tribunal accepted the respondent’s reasoning to ensure that the revised plans could be properly assessed with certainty of outcome. The Tribunal imposed the conditions accordingly.

75. The Tribunal is satisfied that the imposed conditions that include time requirements to vary the Crown Lease vis a vis commencement of building work, a requirement for a revised plan-set substantially in accordance with nominated exhibits in the ACAT proceedings, and conditions addressing entity requirements, will meet the relevant provisions of the Plan and of the PDA.

76. The order was made on 5 January 2026. The conditions of approval are at Annexure A to this statement of reasons.

………………………………. Senior Member A Pegrum

167 Transcript of hearing, 8 December 2025, page 237 lines 41–46; page 238 lines 1–2 Date(s) of hearing: 3, 4, 8 December 2025 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Walker SC Mr J Nuttall Solicitors for the Applicant: Clayton Utz Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Larkings Solicitors for the Respondent: ACT Government Solicitor Annexure A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – DA 202342298 Some conditions of the approval require attention before work commences or before approved drawings will be released. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF DEVELOPMENT - GENERAL a) This development must be started (commenced) within three years from the date when this approval takes effect. b) This development must be finished (completed) within three years from the date when it started, or within such further time as approved in writing by the planning and land authority. Note: Under the Planning and Development Act 2007, the planning and land authority may extend the time to commence or finish the development if an application, to extend the time to commence or finish the development, is made prior to when the development has to be started or finished – refer to section 184(3) and 188. Note too however the Transitional provisions of the Planning Act 2023 may impact on the Authority’s ability to extend any time frames in this condition. 2. COMMENCEMENT OF BUILDING WORK – CROWN LEASE No building work in relation to this Development Application except demolition, decontamination, site/servicing works and/or excavation is to commence on the site until the Crown lease is varied to permit the approved development. 3. TIME TO VARY THE CROWN LEASE In accordance with Section 184(2)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2007, this approval will end if the lessee has not varied the Crown lease to permit the development within 36 months of the date this approval takes effect. This requires the documents varying the Crown lease to be registered by the Registrar-General (Access Canberra) on the Land Titles Register.

CONDITIONS RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT and ENTITY REQUIREMENTS 4. FURTHER INFORMATION The applicant shall lodge with the planning and land authority, to the satisfaction of the planning and land authority prior to the Authority issuing stamped plans: a) A revised plan-set, substantially in accordance with the following exhibits in ACAT proceeding AT 57/2025: 1) architectural drawings which form exhibit A18 and with further changes to: i) amend the description of the current 'Lower Ground Floor' level to 'Basement 1'; ii) amend the description of the current 'Basement 1' to 'Basement 2'; and iii) amend the description of the current 'Basement 2' to 'Basement 3'; 2) civil drawings which form Annexure AM-7 to exhibit A7; and 3) landscape drawings which form Annexure PM-2 to exhibit A11. b) Evidence of support for the development as changed by condition 4a) above, from the following entities: 1) Icon Water 2) CED City Services (formally TCCS) 3) Environment Protection Authority (EPA) 4) EVO Energy Note: The Authority will accept information submitted to address the above conditions for the referral of such information to each entity. If endorsement and suitable advice is received from the entity (to the Authority), such advice will address this condition. Note: TCCS is now the City and Environment Directorate (CED) c) Evidence of written approval of CED (formerly TCCS) and/or Icon Water, as is applicable and required, to the encroachment on the stormwater easement currently over the site. Notes: i) Consider providing all requested information under a single s165 application. This will assist the Authority in providing you a response in the most efficient manner. ii) Information shall be submitted in the eDevelopment portal addressing the above conditions. Please ensure plans and supporting information are suitably named as per the Authority’s naming convention, are clouded for any amendments, such clouding are labelled consistently with items listed on the s165 application form. iii) Any substantial changes to the development required to comply with the above conditions may need to be submitted for the approval of the planning and land authority with an application to amend the approval under S205 of the Planning Act 2023.

5. ICON WATER – WORKS NOT TO COMMENCE a) No construction works, with the exception of demolition, excavation and site preparation works such as erosion and sediment control, in relation to this development approval is to commence until the lessee/applicant has obtained a Statement of Acceptance from ICON Water in relation to water and sewerage networks and submitted the Statement of Acceptance to the planning and land authority as satisfying this condition of approval under s165 of the Planning and Development Act 2007. Note: Condition 4b) above. b) The lessee/applicant must address and comply with the requirements of ICON Water stated in the Statement of Acceptance obtained per the above. Note: Any substantial changes to the development required for utility services compliance will need to be submitted for the consideration of the planning and land authority with an application to amend the approval under Section 205 of the Planning Act 2023. 6. CED CITY SERVICES (FORMERLY TCCS) – WORKS NOT TO COMMENCE a) No construction works in relation to this development approval is to commence until the lessee/applicant has received endorsement for the development (and activities) within the unleased land surrounding the subject block. Evidence is to be provided to the satisfaction of the planning and land authority as satisfying this condition of approval under s165 of the Planning and Development Act 2007. Note: Condition 4b) above. Any substantial changes to the development required to meet TCCS requirements, including associated works on unleased land, will need to be submitted for the consideration of the territory planning authority with an application to amend the approval under S205 of the Planning Act 2023. b) The lessee/applicant shall prepare and submit for approval or endorsement by CED City Services addressing, but not limited to, the following matters: 1) a revised waste management plan including the implementation of remote card access facilities to prevent residents from accessing the waste enclosure; 2) a staging plan which demonstrates that the replacement of stormwater services will be constructed prior to the demolition and removal of the existing stormwater pipeline running through the subject site and prior to construction of the proposed buildings, and in such a manner that the continuity of service of the stormwater system has minimum avoidable disruption; 3) a car park management plan, including the identification of the designated hotel parking spaces for short-stay users as drop-off/pick-up spaces or laybys; 4) a plan for the management of the goods loading and unloading facilities; and, 5) a plan for the proposed management of construction waste. c) The lessee/applicant must comply with the requirements of TCCS. Note: TCCS is now within and known as the City and Environment Directorate (CED). Any substantial changes to the development required to meet TCCS requirements will need to be submitted for the consideration of the territory planning authority with an application to amend the approval under S205 of the Planning Act 2023. 7. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY (EPA) – WORKS NOT TO COMMENCE a) No construction works (including demolition) in relation to this development approval is to commence until the lessee/applicant has received endorsement for the development. Evidence is to be provided to the satisfaction of the planning and land authority as satisfying this condition of approval under s165 of the Planning and Development Act 2007. Note: Condition 4b) above. b) The lessee/applicant shall prepare and submit for approval or endorsement by EPA addressing, but not limited to, the following matters: 1) a demolition plan for any demolition works to be undertaken on site; 2) a sediment and erosion control concept plan; and 3) a preliminary site investigation report addressing the soils proposed to be removed from the site. c) The lessee/applicant must comply with the requirements of the EPA. Note: Any substantial changes to the development required to meet EPA requirements will need to be submitted for the consideration of the planning and land authority with an application to amend the approval under S205 of the Planning Act 2023. 8. WASTE MANAGEMENT – DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE All building waste is to be stored on the site in suitable receptacles/containers and collected regularly. The lessee is to take all reasonable steps to ensure that waste, particularly wind-borne litter, does not affect adjoining or adjacent properties. 9. SERVICES Any service connections including, point of entry, meter boxes and gas meters, are to be located clear of areas approved for car parking space(s) to ensure these services do not reduce the minimum area of the parking spaces and/or restrict vehicular access. 10. NOISE MANAGEMENT The assumptions and recommendations included in the Noise Management Plan (NMP) titled “Belconnen Markets Stage 2 DA Noise Management Plan”, Ref 20230822.1/0408A/R1/ANP, Revision 1, dated 4 August 2025, prepared by Acoustic Logic (NMP), are to be incorporated into the final building construction and design. 11. EXCAVATION WORKS AND SOIL REMOVAL a) Any intrusive excavation works undertaken at the site are to be undertaken in accordance with an Unexpected Finds Protocol in accordance with EPA relevant requirements. b) Any soils proposed to be removed from the site must be assessed in accordance with the ACT EPA (2022) Information Sheet 4 'Requirements for the Reuse and Disposal of Contaminated Soil in the ACT' or the equivalent prevailing regulatory requirements. c) No soil is to be removed from the site without EPA approval.

ADVISORY NOTES This development application is approved with the following advisory notes from the planning and land authority. It is recommended that careful consideration be given to advisory notes prior to commencing work. 1. RELEASE OF APPROVED PLAN(s) Final stamped plans may not be released until all relevant conditions of approval (including Leasing, s165 further information) are complied with to the satisfaction of the planning and land authority. 2. SIGNAGE a) This development application does not include an assessment of any proposed signage.

Any proposed signage at the site must be the subject of a separate DA for approval by planning and land authority, unless exempt in accordance with the Planning (Exempt Development) Regulation 2023. b) All signage installed at the site, including advertising signage and hoarding, should comply with the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics and the ACT Government’s Hoarding Signage Advertising Guidelines available online at https://www.planning.act.gov.au/build-buy-renovate/for-industry/industry-resources/hoarding-signage-guidelines 3. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION – NOISE Noise from equipment which may be installed or used at the site, including air conditioning units/pool filters, must comply with the noise standard at the block boundary at all times as per the Environment Protection Regulation 2005. Please consider the type and location of noise generating equipment prior to installation. Written assurance should be sought from the supplier/installer of the equipment that it complies with the Noise Zone Standard as per the Environment Protection Regulation 2005. 4. CITY AND ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE – CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY Gas connections are now restricted in the ACT. From 8 December 2023, the Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Regulation 2010 will restrict new natural gas connections to all residential, commercial and community facility zones and all class 1 to 4 buildings. Transition arrangements are in place that include deadlines to submit a new connection application to the gas distributor. If your development proposes to connect to the natural gas network, please visit the Everyday Climate Choices website: https://www.climatechoices.act.gov.au/policy-programs/preventing-new-gas-network-connections to find out how these changes will impact your development. Other approvals Approval of the development application under the Planning and Development Act 2007 grants development approval only. Other approvals may be required, including: 1. Building Approval Most building work requires building approval under the Building Act 2004 to ensure it complies with building laws such as the Building Code of Australia. The lessee should engage a private building certifier to determine whether building approval is required and assess and approve the building plans before construction commences. A list of certifiers can be obtained from the City and Environment Directorate. 2. Use of verges or other unleased Territory Land In accordance with the Public Unleased Land Act 2013, road verges and other unleased Territory land must not be used for the carrying out of works, including the storage of materials or waste, without prior approval of the Territory. More information is available from the City and Environment Directorate at https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/city-living/public\_land\_use. 3. Works on unleased Territory Land In accordance with the Public Unleased Land Act 2013, no work can be undertaken on unleased Territory land without the approval of the Territory. Such approval must be obtained from the Senior Manager, Place Coordination and Planning, City Services, City and Environment Directorate by way of: (a) a certificate of design acceptance prior to the commencement of any work; and (b) a certificate of operational acceptance on completion of all works to be handed over to City Services CED. Works on unleased Territory land may include the construction or upgrading of driveway verge crossings, public footpaths, roads, street lighting, stormwater works, waste collection amenities, street signs and line marking, road furniture and landscaping. Contact details for relevant agencies ACT Civil and Administrative www.acat.act.gov.au Tribunal tribunal@act.gov.au 15 Constitution Avenue, CANBERRA 02 6207 1740 CITY ACT 2601 02 6205 4855 (Fax) GPO Box 370, CANBERRA, ACT 2601 ACT Supreme Court www.courts.act.gov.au 4-6 Knowles Place, 02 6205 0000 CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 GPO Box 1548, CANBERRA CITY, ACT 2601 City and Environment Directorate www.planning.act.gov.au 480 Northbourne Avenue 02 6207 1923 DICKSON ACT 2602 GPO Box 158, CANBERRA 2601 • Territory Planning Authority - list of certifiers for building approval - demolition information - asbestos information

• Environment Protection Authority EPAPlanningLiaison@act.gov.au 6207 5642 - environment protection - water resources - Conservation, Planning and Research worksafe@worksafe.act.gov.au 132 281 - threatened species/wildlife management • WorkSafe ACT - asbestos information • ACT Heritage Council www.environment.act.gov.au 132 281 - Aboriginal, historic and natural heritage management TCCS.TreeProtectionACTPLARef@act.gov.au TCCS.TreeProtection@Act.gov.au • Tree Protection Unit - Development Applications (DA) issue: - Tree Damaging Activity Applications (TDAA) issue:

Transport Canberra and City www.tccs.act.gov.au Services 132 281 • landscape management and protection plan approval 02 6207 0019 (development coordination) • use of verges or other unleased tccs.dcdevelopmentcoordination@act.gov. Territory land au • works on unleased Territory land - design acceptance • driveway inspections or building applications • damage to public assets

Health Directorate www.health.act.gov.au hps@act.gov.au 02 5124 9700 Education Directorate www.education.act.gov.au 02 6205 5429 Utilities • Telstra (networks) 02 8576 9799 02 6229 8000 • TransACT (networks) 02 6248 3111 02 6293 5749 • Icon Water • Electricity reticulation Translation and interpretation services The ACT Government’s translation and interpreter service runs 24 hours a day, every day of the week by calling 131 450.