parking in our town and group centres must be aimed at supporting businesses and be limited to shorter stays of up to three hours. In suburban residential areas, developments must provide sufficient parking to keep the amenity of residential areas. However, less parking will be needed in town and group centres and along rapid inter-town transit ways where there is good access to public transport.

1. The Tribunal was also referred to the most recent ACT Government policy document related to planning and transport Building an Integrated Transport Network: Parking dated June 2015. This document notes that the government:

...will pursue opportunities for more efficient use of parking assets across the week and different times of day (for example supporting retail during the day, restaurants at night and recreational activities on the weekend)[42]

...Ultimately it is up to the prospective residents to satisfy themselves that their housing provides the on-site parking they require.[43]

1. The Parking and Vehicular Access General Code has precise definitions[44] for short stay parking ("generally up to 4 (four) hours duration") and long stay parking ("generally longer than 4 (four) hours duration"). Section 3.3.4 of the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code gives specific requirements for the location of long stay, short stay and operational parking in a commercial CZ5 mixed use zone elsewhere than in the city centre as follows - long stay parking: on-site or within 400m except for residential use where parking is to be on-site; short stay parking: on-site or within 200m; and visitor parking: on-site or within 200m.
2. A significant amount of time was taken up at the hearing in relation to how the distance of 200m is to be measured and whether, if one of the Margrie Lane carpark boundaries was within the 200m limit, the whole of the car park spaces in that car park should be counted.
3. When considering the measurement of distance the Tribunal noted that section 150 of the Legislation Act 2001 provides:

In applying an Act or statutory instrument, distance is to be measured in a straight line on a horizontal plane.

1. The applicant variously contended that distance should be measured by the walking distance from the development; that there was more than one convention according to Mr Wyatt's evidence and according to the different expert opinions in the decision of Amarso v ACTPLA[45] (Amarso); and that, if defined as a straight line, it should be measured from the front door of a property and transcribe a circle from that point such that any carparks within that circle are deemed to be able to be considered and those outside would not be included.
2. In his Witness Statement[46] Mr Wyatt stated at paragraph 48 that: ".... in determining the application of the 200 metre provision. Conventional practice is that these distances to off-site car spaces has been measured block to block, straight line or concentrically from the site rather than strict walking distance."
3. In relation to the applicant's contention that distance should be measured by 'walking distance' the Tribunal noted that section 3.3.4 of the PVAGC, which referred to 'locational requirements', under City Centre long stay parking states "On-site or in publicly available carparks up to 1km distant" (Tribunal's emphasis). Otherwise the section states 'within 200m or 400m'. There is no reference to walking distance.
4. In Amarso, in which Dr Jarvis also appeared for the respondent Authority, a differently constituted tribunal considered the application of the 200m measurement. That tribunal noted this was an issue on which the expert opinions differed and did not decide the issue. In that case, Dr Jarvis had referred to the evidence of Mr Paul Isaks, a transport specialist in the Transport Planning and Strategy Section of the City Planning Division in the Environment and Sustainability Directorate of the ACT Government, that "there was a long standing convention or practice in the ACT to take account of the available spare capacity as long as the "crow flies" distance between the nearest boundary of the development and the car park boundary was less than the 200m specified in the Parking Code. In his view, weight should be given to the convention in the interests of administrative consistency."[47] The Tribunal noted Mr Wyatt's evidence that he "succeeded the responsibilities on behalf of the department and subsequently ACTPLA that were held by Mr Isaks.'[48]
5. Dr Jarvis told the Tribunal, as in Amarso, that weight should be given to the convention in the interests of administrative consistency.
6. Notwithstanding the definition of 'measurement of distance' in the Legislation Act, the applicant was critical of the lack of definition of where the straight line starts. The applicant was also critical of the respondent failing to take appropriate action since Amarso was decided in 2012 to define this measurement in the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code or in the Territory Plan, given that the definition was crucial to some developments.
7. The Tribunal concurs with Dr Jarvis that, in the interests of administrative consistency, the measurement of distance, in this case 200m, should adopt the convention referred to by Mr Wyatt above. Notwithstanding the applicant's criticism, the applicant did not call any expert evidence which might have assisted the Tribunal to determine this issue.
8. The Tribunal finds, in applying the convention, measuring either in a straight line or concentrically, that a part of the Margrie Lane carpark is within the 200m distance and that, therefore, the car parking spaces in that carpark are able to be included by the respondent as available off site carparking.

81. The Tribunal notes that the Margrie Lane car park is currently being reconfigured and extended north towards Anthony Rolfe Avenue with an increase in capacity of approximately 74 car spaces. Northrop Consulting Engineers has advised that none of the additional car parking associated with the adjacent commercial development is relying on the Margrie Lane car park. Northrop has reported that extension of the car park will include pram ramps on Anthony Rolfe Avenue and that there will be footpaths on the north verge of Anthony Rolfe Avenue. Northrop also noted "restaurant peak demand will be outside of the peak shop demand thus assisting with efficient use of parking"[49].

1. The Tribunal has previously noted that resident demand for car parking in the proposed development has been met within the boundaries of the subject site and the several parking studies undertaken on behalf of the party joined have determined that there are adequate numbers of parking spaces available for short stay and long stay parking for visitors to the site. The Tribunal concludes that the proposed development complies with the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code.

Issue 4 - Does the proposed development comply with the approved Lease and Development Conditions including the Planning Control Plan and Development Intentions Plan?[50]

1. The issue of compliance with the L&DCs was at the heart of the applicant's case. The lease and development conditions for the subject site are a relevant consideration because they are referred to in the Commercial Zones Development Code and the Multi Unit Housing Development Code.
2. The applicant contends that "the lease and development conditions, even the intent of the lease and development conditions, should take precedence over the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code".[51] She further contends that the lease and development conditions were a higher imperative than meeting the provisions of any of the precinct, development or general codes.[52]
3. The respondent contended[53] that in the "site specific" L&DCs for the subject site, the object and intent is expressed in specific provisions at the beginning of that part of the L&DCs, namely "Development Intentions Plan" and "Planning Objectives." The development intentions plan[54] shows that the intent of the L&DCs was not necessarily to have all car parking in basements, because it depicts some car parking at ground level.
4. The respondent referred the Tribunal to the decision of the predecessor of this tribunal, the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in Cvetanoski v Commissioner for Land and Planning[55] in which that tribunal stated at [9]:

The applicant's argument relies on applying rules of statutory interpretation to the words of Appendix II.1 as if it were subordinate legislation. This poses a difficulty in that the Plan has not been drafted as a statutory instrument. It has been drafted by planners. The Plan's introduction states that its structure has been devised to meet a number of objectives which include "to be readily available to the ACT Community" and "to be as simple to use as possible." The rules of statutory interpretation cannot readily be applied to it.

1. The 'Lease and Development Conditions' in the present matter is also a planning instrument and it is not to be construed in a legalistic manner. The Tribunal's approach is to have regard to the planning policy it reflects. The Tribunal refers to and adopts an observation by a differently constituted tribunal in AMC Projects v ACTPLA[56]: "We observe, however that many of the features of the proposed development which give rise to the objections raised by the objectors are the natural consequence of the policies introduced to permit more intensive development in residential core areas."
2. Mr Ajith Buddhadasa did not accept the applicant's contentions as to the interpretation of the lease and development conditions. In his statement[57], Mr Buddhadasa said that - "meeting the intent of the lease and development conditions and the requirements of the Territory Plan including the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code was both important and necessary".[58] In his opinion, the intent of the lease and development conditions for the subject site in relation to car parking was given under the heading 'Planning Objectives' as to "minimise the impact of car accommodation when viewed from [the] public and private domain".
3. He further stated that the - "Section under the heading 'Planning principles' and subsequent sections in the L&Ds outline some qualitative and quantitative measures to be used to realise the intents mentioned under the planning objectives. In that L&Ds suggest providing underground car parking so that the visual impacts from car parking areas can be minimised therefore the above intent can be met."[59]
4. It was Mr Buddhadasa's contention that this interpretation is supported by the Development Intentions Plan which formed part of the lease and development conditions and shows a possible built-form outcome with basement parking for residents and a small number of cars parked behind the building and screened by landscaping.[60] He opined - "Therefore it is evident from the L&Ds that the L&Ds does not require or to provide all the carparking generated by this development (as per PVAGC parking provision rates) in an underground carpark."[61]
5. Mr Buddhadasa also did not accept contention 18 in the applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions that "cars being accommodated on the street will be visible all the time...will not create an attractive urban precinct...will not contribute to making the area a desirable place to live". In Mr Buddhadasa's opinion, on-street car parking is "a part of urban streetscape character" and it was not the intention of the lease and development conditions to forbid visitor parking on the street.[62]
6. In relation to the applicant's contention 20 Mr Buddhadasa said -

"26. Site specific contentions in the L&Ds are the measures mentioned in L&Ds to meet the objectives of the L&Ds. However these measures are not the only measures which are capable of meeting the objectives in the L&Ds. That is the reason for the applicable development codes to have provisions enabling a development to depart from the L&Ds provided the development meets the intent of the L&Ds."

1. Mr Buddhadasa had formed the view that[63] "the fundamental difference in the applicant's understanding of the proposal and the planning and land authority's determination lies in how the proposal is consistent with the intent of the lease and development conditions". The applicant's view is that as mentioned in the L&Ds the development must accommodate all the parking numbers required for the development in an underground car park within the block. Contrary to the applicant's view, the planning and land authority adopted a view that the intent of the lease and development conditions is to minimise visual impacts from parking located at grade. To minimize the visual impacts from at grade parking, the L&Ds suggest having an underground car park but the L&Ds does (sic) not mandate all the parking required for the development to be accommodated within the block or in the basement car park. The development complies with the lease and development conditions by providing a basement car park."
2. The Tribunal has considered the contentions and submissions of all parties as to the lease and development conditions and the 'intent' of the lease and development conditions and has concluded that the Commercial Zones Development Code and the Multi Unit Housing Development Code allow for departure from the lease and development conditions provided that the development meets the intent of the lease and development conditions.
3. The Tribunal accepted Mr Buddhadasa's evidence. It was not successfully challenged. It was both credible and compelling. The Tribunal is satisfied that this development complies with the L&DCs by providing a basement car park.
4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the L&DCs mandate that all parking required for the development be within the block or in the basement. The Tribunal finds that the site specific L&DCs are measures to meet the objectives in the L&DCs but, are not the only objectives. It is necessary to consider also the Planning Objectives, Planning Principles and the Development Intentions Plan.
5. The subject site is located in a CZ5 mixed use zone. The CZ5 development table prescribes the merit track for assessment of a development application. For a development application in the merit track, the applicant has the option to comply with either the rules or the criteria in the relevant development codes, except where a rule is mandatory. The relevant codes in this instance are the Commercial Zones Development Code and the Multi Unit Housing Development Code. As noted above, both the Commercial Zones Development Code (at Criterion 1) and the Multi Unit Housing Development Code (at Criterion 4) provide for a development to depart from the L&DCs where the development meets the intent of the L&DCs. In order to meet the intent of the L&DCs, the development is not required to comply with the other detailed clauses in the L&DCs that refer to car parking and accommodation.[64] If that were not so, these other clauses would be mandatory in effect and would operate in the same way as R1 and R4. This would defeat the purpose of C1 and C4.[65]
6. As Mr Buddhadasa opined in his Witness Statement[66]: "Otherwise the whole L&Ds will become mandatory and there will not be any relevance of Criterion 1 of the CZDC or Criterion 4 of the MUHDC."
7. The Tribunal finds that the development proposal for parking meets the objective for car accommodation because almost all car accommodation provided on the site is located in a basement car park where its visual impact is minimal. In this regard the Tribunal notes that the planning objectives refer to car accommodation and not car parking numbers.
8. For these reasons the Tribunal finds that the proposed development meets the intent of the lease and development conditions and is not inconsistent with the relevant codes and objectives of the Territory Plan.
9. The Tribunal is satisfied that the "requirements" are of the PVAGC and the "use and area of commercial tenancies" refers to the PVAGC which requires only residential parking to be on-site and in the basement; it does not require all commercial parking to be on site. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the "Development Intentions Plan"[67] contemplates some visitor parking that is not in the basement.

Issue 5 - Would development approval be consistent with section 119 and section 120 of the Planning Act?

1. Sections 119 and 120 of the Planning Act provide for the assessment of development applications in the merit track:

119 Merit track - when development approval must not be given

_(1) Development approval must not be given for a development proposal in the merit track unless the proposal is consistent with - _

(b) if the proposed development relates to land comprised in a rural lease - any land management agreement for the land; and

(c) if the proposed development will affect a registered tree or declared site - the advice of the conservator of flora and fauna in relation to the proposal.

Note 1 An application cannot be approved if it is inconsistent with the territory plan (see s 50) or the National Capital Plan (see Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 (Cwlth), s 11).

_(2) Also, development approval must not be given for a development proposal in the merit track if approval would be inconsistent with any advice given by an entity to which the application was referred under section 148 (Some development applications to be referred) unless the person deciding the application is satisfied that - _

(ii) any realistic alternative to the proposed development, or relevant aspects of it; and

(b) the decision is consistent with the objects of the territory plan.

_(3) To remove any doubt, if a proposed development will affect a registered tree or declared site - _

(a) the person deciding the development application for the proposed development must not approve the application unless the approval is consistent with the advice of the conservator of flora and fauna in relation to the proposal; and

(b) subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the conservator's advice.

1. Merit track - considerations when deciding development approval

In deciding a development application for a development proposal in the merit track, the decision-maker must consider the following:

(a) the objectives for the zone in which the development is proposed to take place;

(b) the suitability of the land where the development is proposed to take place for a development of the kind proposed;

(c) if an environmental significance opinion is in force for the development proposal - the environmental significance opinion;

Note Environmental significance opinion - see s 138AA. Environmental significance opinions expire 18 months after they are notified (see s 138AD).

(d) each representation received by the authority in relation to the application that has not been withdrawn;

(e) if an entity gave advice on the application in accordance with section 149 (Requirement to give advice in relation to development applications) - the entity's advice;

Note Advice on an application is given in accordance with section 149 if the advice is given by an entity not later than 15 working days (or shorter prescribed period) after the day the application is given to the entity. If the entity gives no response, the entity is taken to have given advice that supported the application (see s 150).

(f) if the proposed development relates to land that is public land - the public land management plan for the land;

(g) the probable impact of the proposed development, including the nature, extent and significance of probable environmental impacts.

1. The Tribunal has considered whether the proposed development complies with the requirements of section 119 of the Planning Act.

s 119 (1)(a) - consistent with the relevant code - as noted above[68], the Tribunal considers that the proposed development is consistent with the Gungahlin Precinct Map and Code, the Commercial Zones Development Code, the Residential Zones Development Code and the Multi Unit Housing Development Code. The proposed development also complies with the requirements of the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code.

s 119 (1)(b) - land management agreement - not applicable.

s 119 (1)(c) - advice of the Conservator of Flora and Fauna - the proposed development will not affect a registered tree or a declared site.

s 119 (2) - advice given by an entity - The Authority sought and obtained entity advice from Emergency Services ACT (ESA), ActewAGL Water Division, ActewAGL Electrical Division and ActewAGL Gas Networks. Emergency Services ACT advised they had no objections to the proposal. The Authority also sought entity advice from the Territory and Municipal Services Directorate (TAMSD), and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). Neither TAMSD nor the Environment Protection Agency provided advice within the time prescribed in section 149(2) of the Planning Act and it was therefore considered that they each supported the proposal in principle under section 150 of the Planning Act.

s 119 (2)(a) (i) - (applicable guidelines) - there are no applicable guidelines.

s 119 (2)(a) (ii) - (any realistic alternative) - not applicable.

s 119 (2)(b) - (objects of the territory plan) - The object of the Territory Plan is broadly stated in section 48 of the Planning Act as to ensure that, in a manner not inconsistent with the National Capital Plan, "the planning and development of the ACT provide the people of the ACT with an attractive, safe and efficient environment in which to live, work and have their recreation". The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development is not inconsistent with this object.

1. Section 120 of the Planning Act requires the decision maker to consider the zone objectives, the suitability of the land, representations, entity advice, plan of management and probable environment impacts. This section does not impose any obligation to make a decision that is consistent with the listed matters; rather this section is intended to assist the decision maker in reaching a balance between sometimes competing objectives. The Tribunal has considered whether the proposed development complies with the matters in section 120 of the Planning Act as follows:

s 120 (a) - (zone objectives) - The subject site is in the CZ5 Mixed Use Zone. The objectives for the CZ5 zone are as follows (with the Tribunal's underlining):

1. Encourage higher density residential development in locations with convenient access to transport corridors, and commercial and employment centres
2. Create an efficient and sustainable urban environment and provide for a diversity of living, working and recreation opportunities

1. Maintain and enhance environmental amenity and undertake development using best practice environmentally sustainable development principles

1. Encourage a standard of urban design that is consistent with selected major avenues, approach routes and other strategically located areas
2. Encourage activities particularly at street frontage level that contribute to an active public realm.

1. In Scherl & ACT Planning and Land Authority[69] Dr Jarvis appeared before a differently constituted tribunal for the respondent authority and submitted:

118. ...that compliance with the relevant code should be taken to establish that a proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, except perhaps in some exceptional circumstance. This flows from the statutory framework provided by ss 53(1) and 55(2) of the Act. Section 53 states:

The objectives for a zone set out the policy outcomes intended to be achieved by applying the applicable development tables and code to zone.

A code must be consistent with each objective for the zone to which the code relates.

1. The respondent also notes the terms of the Introduction to the MUHD Code which states:

Codes provide additional planning, design and environmental controls to support zone objectives and assessable use in the development tables.

1. That tribunal accepted the argument that a proposal that meets the code will ordinarily be consistent with zone objectives.
2. The Tribunal has already found that the DA complies with the relevant codes. The Tribunal has considered these objectives in the present matter and is satisfied that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives for the CZ5 zone.

s 120 (b) - suitability of the land - the Tribunal is satisfied that the land is suitable for the proposed development.

s 120 (c) - representations - the Tribunal has considered the representations received by the respondent in relation to the development application. The issues raised by the applicant before the Tribunal are found in some of these representations. The Tribunal has considered these representations in relation to the requirements in section 119 of the Planning Act, and more generally under section 120, and is not satisfied that they provide a basis for refusing the development application.

s 120 (d) - entity advice - as noted previously, the proposed development is not inconsistent with advice given by an entity to which the application was referred in accordance with the Planning Act.

s 120 (e) - plan of management - not applicable.

s 120 (f) - probable impact - the Tribunal considers that there are no probable environmental impacts from the proposed development.

1. It was apparent to the Tribunal that the Landscape Plan[70] approved in the DA would need changing in view of the redesign of the carpark spaces. The Tribunal noted that the area of the proposed development was reasonably sterile. The following exchange took place [71]:

Tribunal: ...believe that some of the success of this scheme from a larger public point of view might depend upon the appearance of the building and the appearance of the health, size, scale type, whatever of the trees, and there's no reference to that, whereas a plan of landscape prepared by let's say a landscape architect would allay some of my fears.

Dr Jarvis: Can I make an observation. It would be open to the Tribunal having raised the matter and heard Mr Farzan to add into the list of things that are required as ---

Dr Jarvis further drawings to be required as a condition so the tribunal could in the list on page 16 add a requirement to provide a revised landscape plan.

1. Accordingly, the Tribunal will include, as a condition, the requirement that the party joined provide a revised plan of landscape prepared by a qualified landscape architect.

1. Although not relevant to the determination of the DA under the Planning Act and the Tribunal's review, the Tribunal has noted the various issues raised by the applicant concerning the respondent's internal processes. In particular, the applicant cross examined Mr Buddhadasa[72] about the respondent's process of assessing the L&DCs in the following exchange:

Applicant: So was it you who was required to make the decision as to whether the proposal met the intent of the lease and development conditions on the block?

Mr Buddhadasa: No, with the advice from other - my managers and the (indistinct) .

Applicant: So I understood that I got, via objective, all the documents that were relevant in the case, but I didn't get any documents that discussed the various aspects of the lease and development conditions and how they were assessed?

Mr Buddhadasa: These are normally - we discuss all the form by face to face conversations. That is how it's happening all the time.

1. In response to questions from the Tribunal Mr Buddhadasa confirmed that when he had not heard back from TAMS when entity advice had been sought from them he had telephoned someone in TAMS to progress the application but was unable to recall if he had recorded or made a note of the date, the details of the discussion, the outcome and the name of the person with whom he had spoken. In fact, Mr Buddhadasa said[73] 'most of the time you don't (make a record of the conversation). We just (discuss) these issues over the phone.'
2. The applicant also cross examined Mr Wyatt[74]about the lack of any detail in the documentation provided to her which identified what documents had been considered by the respondent's Environment and Planning Directorate's Major Projects and Transport Branch when it considered the original proposal and when it considered and supported the revised DA proposal.
3. In the following exchange between the applicant and Mr Wyatt, he acknowledged the MTAT failure to set out administratively the relevant documentation:

Mr Wyatt: I don't assess people's objections, if you like to development, but I do assess the parking code, and my team does assess the objectives and whether the objectives are being met as part of that assessment, and I would acknowledge perhaps administratively that you haven't seen transparent acknowledgement of that probably in the material that has been provided, but certainly that judgment has been applied to the decisions that have been made[75].

The applicant: I haven't seen evidence of that, and Ms Markus said she hadn't been to the site. She acknowledged, and yourself has acknowledged, you haven't read any of the representations against the development, but my understanding is that it is your area of responsibility to have it assessed it against the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code, and as well as the rules in the code there are a reference to assessing it against future lessees' demand on the car parking, and also a reference to assessing the objectives, and I don't see that all three of those things have been done?

Mr Wyatt: Well, we apply judgment collectively when we assess those things. I can accept that administratively you may not see that all documented, but certainly that forms part of the judgment that we're actually making, and I guess I would add to that is that neither Ms Markus nor myself have any approving authority. We provide technical advice to the development assessment teams, hence why we are not then called upon to actually make a judgment on representations or objections from the community.

1. The Tribunal is concerned about the lack of rigour applied to record keeping by the assessor and by the MPAT. The Tribunal also endorses the applicant's comments about the perfunctory references to the Lease and Development Conditions and to the Codes in the decision. The 44 people who made representations were entitled to receive a decision which transparently set out the documents and evidence the respondent had considered in assessing the DA and in reaching a decision.

1. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal therefore varies the decision under review by imposing an additional condition of approval requiring the party joined to lodge a landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect.
2. Other matters raised by the respondent administratively with the party joined, namely improvements to the parking layout for visitors or tenants behind the building and keyed access to basement parking for tenants of the ground floor commercial units as well as the party joined's latest parking proposal[76] increasing the onsite parking to 76 spaces and his discussions with TAMS[77] in relation to indented parallel parking along Gungahlin Place between Anthony Rolfe Avenue and Sarre Street will need to be pursued administratively by the party joined.

[4] Dr and Mr Ibbotson's Statement submitted in Rejection of Current proposal for DA 201324439 Part G, Summary page 27

[12] Transcript of Proceedings page 7, lines 39-44

[21] Transcript of Proceedings 3 June 2015 page 13 line 27

[22] Transcript of Proceedings 3 June 2015 page 11 lines 22-25

[23] Transcript of Proceedings 3 June 2015 page 11 lines 41-44

[24] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions at [19]

[25] Transcript of Proceedings 3 June 2015 page 19 line 30

[26] Transcript of Proceedings 3 June 2015 page 13 lines 32-44

[27] Party Joined Statement of Facts and Contentions at [2]

[29] Justice and Community Safety Directorate: ACT Road Hierarchy http://www.justice.act.gov.au/page/view/3063/title/act-road-hierarchy

[30] Fact #17 in the applicant's Statement of Contentions

[31] Transcript of Proceedings 4 June 2015 at page 94, lines 35-37

[32] C83: Visitor parking is accessible to all visitors

[33] C84: Car parking spaces on the site (including garages but excluding basement car parking) achieves all of the following (a) do not dominate site landscaping (b) are consistent with the desired character

[34] Fact 122 in the applicant's Statement of Facts

[35] Transcript of Proceedings 3 June 2015 at page 16 line 8

[36] Transcript of Proceedings 4 June 2015 at page 121 line 15

[37] Transcript of Proceedings 3 June 2015 at page 23 line 2

[41] Transcript of Proceedings 4 June 2015 at page 132 line 20

[45] [2012] ACAT 9

[48] Transcript of Proceedings page 220 lines 4-5

[49] Parking Study: Block 1 Section 68 Gungahlin ACT May 2015 pages 7 and 9

[50] Approved Lease and Development conditions dated 5 March 2007 are at T- Documents 217 - 240

[51] Transcript of Proceedings 3 June 2015 at page 29 line 1

[52] Contentions 8 and 9 in the applicant's Statement of Contentions

[53] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions at [29], [34]

[55] [1999] ACTAAT 42 [9-10]

[56] [2006] ACTAAT 13, [26]

[64] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions [35]

[65] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions [36]

[66] Ajith Buddhadasa's Witness Statement at [26]

[69] [2011] ACAT 37 [116-123]

[71] Transcript of Proceedings 5 June 2015 page 268

[72] Transcript of Proceedings 5 June 2015 page 191

[73] Transcript of Proceedings 5 June 2016, page 201

[74] Transcript of Proceedings 5 June 2015 page 227, 228,

[75] Transcript of Proceedings 5 June 2015, page 228, lines 12-18, 27-33

[76] At Annexure B to the Party Joined's Statement of Facts and Contentions

[77] At Annexure C to the Party Joined's Statement of Facts and Contentions