1. The applicant attached copies of a number of documents he gave the Council relating to his application.
2. The Council submits the Principal Registrar's rejection should be confirmed.

1. I have decided the Principal Registrar's rejection must be confirmed.
2. It is unclear why the applicant made an application under section 77 of the PE Act. He did not apply for a permit under the planning scheme.
3. The applicant misunderstands the provisions of the planning scheme. Under Clause 43.04-2, a permit must be generally in accordance with the DP. The Council had earlier determined that the construction of a second dwelling on the subject land in accordance with the architectural plans was not generally in accordance with the DP.
4. This explains why the applicant submitted the amended DP. In effect, the applicant was asking the Council to approve the amended DP as being to its satisfaction. If the Council had been satisfied, the applicant could then apply for a permit and ask the Council to grant a permit on the grounds it was now generally in accordance with the DP.
5. The applicant appears to have not adopted the Council's recommendation that he get planning advice before considering his appeal options.
6. Although the applicant's grounds seek to rely on the Council acting 'outside of the jurisdiction and sections 47 & 77 of the [PE Act]' and 'giving incorrect directions', the applicant has been unable to substantiate these claims.
7. The Council at no stage told the application to make an application for permit or that it was considering his application as a permit application. It never advised of any permit application number. It made it clear that an application to amend a DP cannot be lodged via the Council's portal for permit applications. The Council issued no request for more information on a permit application. The Council made no decision on giving notice under the permit application provisions of the PE Act.
8. I do not find any of the Council's 'directions' as being incorrect.
9. The applicant also says the Tribunal 'must determine how such appeal can now be processed'. In this proceeding, as I have stated, the Tribunal's task is to either direct the Principal Registrar to accept the application or to confirm the rejection.
10. I cannot order the Principal Registrar to accept the application if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under section 77 of the PE Act. As stated in the Principal Registrar's rejection, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider an application lodged under section 77 of the PE Act if no permit application has been made and refused.
11. The applicant should have considered applying under section 149 of the PE Act. Section 149(1)(a) provides that:

A specified person may apply to the Tribunal for review of ... a decision of a specified body in relation to a matter if a planning scheme specifies ... that the matter must be done to the satisfaction ... of the specified body.

1. The Council is a 'specified body'.[4]
2. The applicant has two difficulties with now making an application under section 149(1) of the PE Act.
3. The applicant's first difficulty is that he is not a 'specified person' because, on the evidence before me, he is not 'the owner, user or developer' of the subject land.[5]
4. The applicant's second difficulty is that section 149(2) provides that an application must be made within 28 days after the day on which the decision was made.
5. If the applicant intends to consider another application to either the Council or the Tribunal, I support what the Council told him on 12 March 2025 that he should seek advice.

1. I will confirm the Principal Registrar's rejection.