ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2018-07-27

The applicant submitted that the development proposal did not comply with the Territory Plan in many other respects. For example, she contended that the proposed rooftop terraces comprising an area exceeding 271m² did not comply with criterion 20 of the MUHDC which requires buildings more than two storeys to achieve consistency with the 'desired character' (as defined) and to achieve the appearance from the street of not more than two storeys for that part of the building facing the street; that the private open space and the principal private open space for townhouses 2 and 3 did not comply with mandatory rule 22 of the Precinct Code and/or rule 61 of the MUHDC, respectively; that the front setbacks did not comply with mandatory rule 14 of the Precinct Code; that the plot ratio for the proposed development exceeded mandatory rule 8 of the MUHDC; and that the proposed courtyard walls breached mandatory rule 7 of the Precinct Code.
It became unnecessary to address any of these issues for two reasons. First, the respondent and the first party joined offered variations to the development to address the objections, for example removal of the entire rooftop terrace,[18] separation of the courtyard walls from the stairs, substitution of the courtyard walls with hedges,[19] and walling in certain areas in the basement in order to exclude them from the calculation of gross floor area.[20] However, all of these issues became moot because the whole development did not comply with mandatory rule 3 of the Precinct Code.

[2] Witness statement, 18 October 2017, paragraphs 64 - 66

[3] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 56, lines 28 - 31, page 57, lines 30 - 35

[4] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 40, lines 31 - 36

[5] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 43, lines 12 - 15

[6] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 47, lines 24 - 25

[7] Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd and Anor v Planning and Land Authority and Anor [2008] ACTCA 9 at [68]

[8] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 54, lines 1 - 44

[9] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 59, line 34 - page 60, line 8

[10] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 88, lines 2 - 3

[11] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 86, lines 21 - 23

[12] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 59, lines 18 - 32

[13] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 54, lines 4- 5

[14] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 17, line 41 - page 18, line 9

[15] Witness statement, paragraphs 18 - 21

[16] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 62, line 20 - page 63, line 27

[17] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 65, lines 22 - 26

[18] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 86, lines 37 - 39

[19] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 66, line 42 and page 68, lines 42 - 43

[20] Transcript of proceedings, 2 November 2017, page 76, line 25 - page 77, line 8

Development Act 2007

SULLIVAN v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY & ORS (Administrative Review) [2018] ACAT 76 (27 July 2018)

Legislation cited: Legislation Act 2001 ss 7, 138, 139

Planning and Development Act 2007 ss 50, 51, 115, 144

Subordinate

Legislation: Inner North Precinct Code rules 3, 4, 5

Cases cited: Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd and Anor v Planning and Land Authority and Anor [2008] ACTCA 9

SULLIVAN v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY & ORS

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (21 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (3)

SULLIVAN v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY & ORS (Administrative Review) [2018] ACAT 76 (27 July 2018)