Allan v Development Allowance Authority

The appellant, who resides approximately 200 metres from the Tullamarine Freeway in Melbourne, challenged the decisions of the Development Allowance Authority (DAA) and the subsequent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The appellant argued that the DAA's issuance of infrastructure borrowing certificates for the City Link project would result in increased traffic noise, traffic usage, faster traffic movement, and air pollution, which would adversely affect his residential amenity. He sought to have the DAA decisions reviewed and set aside by the AAT on the basis that they contravened a specific subsection of the Development Allowance Act. The AAT found that the appellant did not have standing to challenge the decisions as he did not demonstrate a special interest in the subject matter at the time of the AAT hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had standing to challenge the DAA decisions and whether the AAT correctly found that the appellant did not have standing. The court needed to determine whether the appellant had a special interest in the subject matter at the time of the AAT hearing, which would confer standing. The court also needed to consider whether the appellant's change of address affected his standing and whether the appellant's evidence was sufficient to demonstrate a reduction in the capital value of his property.

The court found that the appellant had standing to challenge the DAA decisions at the time of his initial application to the AAT. However, the court held that the appellant's change of address and his admission that the threat to his amenity never eventuated meant that he no longer had standing at the time of the AAT hearing. The court also found that the appellant's evidence regarding the reduction in the capital value of his property was insufficient. The court held that the AAT correctly found that the appellant did not have standing to challenge the DAA decisions.

The court allowed the appeal and the second respondent's cross appeal, set aside the decision of the AAT, and remitted the matter to the AAT to be determined according to law. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.