Friends Of Hawker Village Incorporated and Act Planning And Land Authority and Ors (Administrative Review) - [2016] ACAT 56

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

FRIENDS OF HAWKER VILLAGE INCORPORATED & ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY & ORS (Administrative Review) [2016] ACAT 56

AT 101/2015
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – planning and development – lease variation – whether the site is a single dwelling block

Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 68
Planning and Development Act 2007 ss 119, 120, 156,
162, 407, 408A, Schedule 1, item 4

Subordinate
Legislation:Lease Variation Code
Multi Unit Housing Development Code
Parking and Vehicular Access General Code
Planning and Development Regulations 2008 s 8
Territory Plan 2008

Cases Cited:Griffith Narrabundah Community Association v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2011] ACAT 61
Sherl v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors [2011] ACAT 37
Spence v Minister for Urban Services [2000] ACTAAT 37

Tribunal:Senior Member T Foley (Presiding)
Senior Member G Trickett

Date of Orders: 2 June 2016
Date of Reasons for Decision: 2 June 2016

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AT 101/2015

BETWEEN:

FRIENDS OF HAWKER VILLAGE INCORPORATED
Applicant

AND:

ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY
Respondent

AND:
PETER PEPPAS and PETER MICALOS

Parties Joined

TRIBUNAL: Senior Member T Foley (Presiding)

Senior Member G Trickett

DATE: 2 June 2016

ORDER

The Tribunal Orders that:

The decision dated 2 December 2015 to approve, subject to conditions, Development Application 20158466 to vary the Crown lease on block 12 section 37 Page is confirmed.

………………………………..
Senior Member T Foley
for and on behalf of the Tribunal

REASONS FOR DECISION

Friends of Hawker Village Incorporated (the applicant) has sought review of a decision of the ACT Planning and Land Authority (the respondent) dated 2 December 2015 to approve, subject to conditions, Development Application 20158466 (the DA2015) to vary the Crown lease on block 12 section 37 Page (the site) to permit a maximum of five dwellings pursuant to section 162 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) (the Planning Act).
The applicant is an incorporated association which made a representation under section 156 of the Planning Act about the decision and as such is an eligible entity which can apply for review of the decision under section 408A of the Act.
Peter Peppas and Peter Micalos lessees under the Crown lease (the Lessees) were joined as parties.
The review is an application for review by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to section 68 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (the ACAT Act). A decision under section 162 of the Planning Act is reviewable by the Tribunal under sections 407, 408A and Schedule 1, item 4 of the Planning Act.

The Hearing

The matter was heard on 7 April 2016. The Tribunal had before it the documents provide by the respondent on which its decision was based (the T Documents), the submissions and statements of facts and contentions of the parties, witness statements and other exhibits tendered in evidence. The applicant was self represented by Ms R Coghlan assisted by Mr C Lyons. The respondent was represented by Ms K Katavic of counsel and the parties joined were represented by Mr M Falcetta solicitor.
The applicant and parties joined called no evidence. Evidence for the respondent was given by Karen Walker.

Background

The site is land zoned RZ2 under the Territory Plan 2008 (the Territory Plan) and sits at the corner of Belconnen Way and Petterd Street Page. It is 1075 sqm.
On 3 March 1970 a Crown lease was registered in relation to the site (the 1970 Crown lease).[1] The lease provided inter alia that the lessee ‘erect one building only’ (clause c) and ‘use the said land for residential purposes’ (clause g).
[1] T-Documents 171-172
On 30 December 1970 a certificate of occupancy was issued in respect of ‘brick residence and flat’ erected on the site. The approved site plan[2] shows these structures were erected within one building.
[2] T Documents 178
On 6 May 2010 a variation of the Crown lease was registered to permit ‘a single dwelling; or multi-unit housing of not more than two (2) dwellings’.[3]
[3] T Documents 175
0n 9 August 2013 Development Application 201323208 (the DA2013) was approved on reconsideration by the respondent to further vary the Crown lease to permit a maximum of five dwellings and to grant design and siting approval for five dwellings.[4]
[4] T Documents 148
On 29 April 2015 Development Application 201426813 (the DA2014) seeking approval to build a reconfigured two-storey building comprising five dwellings was approved by the respondent.[5] At that time DA2013 remained current.
[5] T Documents 133
DA2013 expired on 10 August 2015. DA2014 has not expired.
On 20 October 2015 DA2015 was lodged by the lessees seeking fresh approval to vary the Crown lease to permit a maximum of five dwellings.[6]
[6] T Documents 111
On 12 November 2015 the applicant submitted a representation with respect to DA2015.[7]
[7] T Documents 79-84
On 2 December 2015 the respondent approved DA2015 subject to conditions.

The relevant law

An application to vary a Crown lease is a ‘development’ within the meaning of that term in section 7 of the Planning Act.
Approval of DA2015 is subject to relevant provisions of the Planning Act. The development is assessable in the merit track under the Territory Plan and as such section 119 and section 120 are specifically relevant.
Approval cannot be given if the proposed development is inconsistent with the Territory Plan. The site is within a RZ2 Zone under the Territory Plan and subject to the RZ2 Suburban Core Zone Objectives (the RZ2 Zone Objectives). The proposed development is also relevantly subject to the Lease Variation Code (the Lease Variation Code), the Multi Unit Housing Development Code (the Multi Unit Code), the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code and the Page Precinct Code. The codes form part of the Territory Plan.
The relevant terms are defined in the Territory Plan:

Single dwelling block

Single dwelling block means a block with one of the following characteristics:
(a)originally leased or used for the purposes of single dwelling housing
(b)created by a consolidation of blocks, at least one of which was originally leased or used for the purpose of single dwelling housing.

Dwelling

Dwelling has the same meaning as in the Planning and Development Regulations 2008.
Section 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2008 provides that meaning:
5Meaning of dwelling
(1)In this regulation:
dwelling—
(a)means a class 1 building, or a self-contained part of a class 2 building, that—
(i)includes the following that are accessible from within the building, or the self-contained part of the building:
(A)at least 1 but not more than 2 kitchens;
(B)at least 1 bath or shower;
(C)at least 1 toilet pan; and
(ii)does not have access from another building that is either a class 1 building or the self‑contained part of a class 2 building; and
(b)includes any ancillary parts of the building and any class 10a buildings associated with the building.
(2)In this section:
kitchen does not include—
(a)outdoor cooking facilities; or
(b)a barbeque in an enclosed garden room.

Evidence called

Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Ms Karen Walker, who is its leasing assessment officer. She says she assessed DA2015. In her view the site is not a single dwelling block. She assessed DA2015 against the Lease Variation Code (including section 120 of the Planning Act), the Residential Zones Development Code, the Multi Unit Code & the suitability of the site. Her evidence was that previous approvals on the site demonstrated that it was possible to construct five dwellings. These decisions had been assessed and approved by a senior assessment officer within the merit assessment team. She herself was assessing a lease variation only, she was not assessing physical construction. She states that she reviewed the previous DA2014 approval for five units which did not comply with all the rules but was assessed against criteria, and that she agreed with that approval.

The matters at issue

Two substantive matters were in issue:
(a)Is the site a single dwelling block? If the site is a single dwelling block, a lease variation to permit a maximum of five dwelling would not be permissible.
(b)Has the respondent made the correct and preferable decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5) dwellings? If the site is not a single dwelling block, the question then remains whether the respondent has made the appropriate decision to approve the lease variation.

Issue 1. Is the site a single dwelling block?

The applicant’s contentions

The applicant contends the site is unsuitable for multi-unit development because it will contribute to the destruction of the neighbourhood character. The applicant distinguishes the position in Sherl v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors[8] in this regard where multi-unit development was approved on a consolidated block even though “the tribunal accept[ed] that the proposed development will not replicate the existing development in the immediate area.” The applicant says in this instance the subject site is not a consolidated block, is of substantially smaller area (1075 sqm as compared with a block size of 1519 sqm in Sherl) and will significantly detract from the existing development in the immediate area.
[8] Sherl v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors [2011] ACAT 37 at [126]-[127]
The applicant further contends any status the site may have as ‘a multi-unit dwelling block’ is an anomaly not obviously considered in the reformulated 2008 definition of ‘dwelling’ in the Territory Plan and the Planning and Development Regulations given it is by surrounded by single dwelling blocks. The applicant contends that it was never the legislative intention that a single structure containing a ‘brick residence and flat’ would later be classified as two dwellings in that reformulation. The applicant says that if this apparent anomaly is not revisited by the ACT government it will have serious ramifications for unintended intensification in the Page and Weetangera areas given that similar site locations exist in these neighbourhoods.
The applicant contends, but as a consequence concedes, that the current effect is that the site and “indeed any block elsewhere in Canberra before 1971” is classifiable as a “multi-unit dwelling block according to the current (2016) definition.”[9]
[9] Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 6 at [10]
The applicant accepts that under the 1970 Crown lease the lessor “could have a second residence as long as it was part of the one building.”[10] The applicant accepts that the “residence with attached flat” type of development in fact erected on the site was therefore a permissible development, but concedes this was only “for a brief period.”[11] This, in the applicant’s eyes, the period when a ‘legal loophole’ existed was closed after 1972 when Crown lease provisions were altered to substitute “erect one private single dwelling house building” for “erect one building only”[12] thereby forestalling any further development of this anomalous kind.
[10] Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 6 at [10]
[11] Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 6 at [11]
[12] Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 7
It is the applicant’s further contention nonetheless that while these ‘residence with flat’ developments approved in the brief period 1970-1972 at the time “blended into the neighbourhood quite well. [That now] treating them differently from neighbouring [single dwelling] blocks for redevelopment purposes will change this balance and is not consistent with RZ2 Objective (b) to provide opportunities for redevelopment by enabling a limited extent of change with regard to the original pattern of subdivision and the density of dwellings.”
The applicant’s overall contention is that it is the anomaly arising from this brief 1970-1972 period that was not properly taken into account in the 2008 reformulated definition of ‘dwelling’ and as such the site should be classified as a single dwelling block.

The respondent’s contentions

The respondent contends the site is not a single dwelling block within the meaning of the legislation in that it was not ‘originally leased or used for the purposes of single dwelling housing’. The respondent relies on the authority in Spence v Minister for Urban Services[13] that a lease clause to the effect of to ‘use the said land for residential purposes’ as in clause (g) of the current Crown lease does not by itself impose any ‘restriction on the number of dwellings that are able to be constructed on the land’. Further, the respondent contends that the provision to ‘erect one building only’ in clause (c) restricts the number of buildings to one, but does not restrict the number of dwellings that may be constructed within that building to one.
[13] Spence v Minister for Urban Services [2000] ACTAAT 37 at [7]
The respondent contends that the original building on the site contained two dwellings within the meaning of ‘dwelling’ in the legislation as both the ‘brick residence’ and the ‘flat’ constituted ‘a self-contained part of a class 2 building’. The original approved site plans[14] show a ‘brick residence’ and a ‘flat’ constructed within the one building, that is to say in the respondent’s view two dwellings. Further the respondent contends the certificate of occupancy[15] issued was in respect of two self-contained spaces, that is to say two dwellings.[16]
[14] T Documents 178
[15] T Documents 177
[16] Respondent’s facts and contentions dated 15 March 2016 at [2]-[4]
Therefore the respondent contends the site has never been a single dwelling block.

The parties joined contentions

The parties joined contend the site was never a single dwelling block as there were two dwellings initially constructed on the site and that this usage was regularised in the variation to the crown lease registered on 6 May 2010 to permit the use of the land for more than one dwelling (clause 3j).[17]

Tribunal’s conclusions on Issue 1

[17] Parties joined facts and contentions dated 22 March 2016 at [4]-[5]

Relevantly in the Territory Plan 'single dwelling block' means either (a) a block originally leased or used for the purposes of single dwelling housing, or (b) a block created by a consolidation of blocks. The site in question is not a consolidation of blocks. The 1970 Crown lease registered over the site imposed a condition that it be used 'for residential purposes' and that such use be restricted to 'erect[ing] one building only'. The restriction notably was not to erect 'one dwelling only'. The certificate of occupancy and approved site plan together show that one building was subsequently erected and that that building contained two living areas – a 'brick residence' and a 'flat'.
The meaning of 'dwelling' in the Territory Plan is draws from Section 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations which provides that a dwelling can either be ‘a class 1 building’ or ‘a self-contained part of a class 2 building’. To be a ‘dwelling’ in the second sense, the self-contained part needs to have exclusive access from within the self-contained part to at least 1 kitchen, at least 1 bath or shower, and at least 1 toilet pan. The evidence was not disputed that both the 'brick residence' and the 'flat' had exclusive access to each of such amenities. The Tribunal finds that each of the 'brick residence' and the 'flat' were therefore dwellings within the meaning of the Territory Plan.
The Tribunal finds as a consequence that the site was never a 'block originally leased or used for the purposes of single dwelling housing' and therefore never a single dwelling block.
The applicant’s contention was that the 1970 Crown lease wording of 'to erect one building only' created a short term anomaly allowing more than one living area on what was intended to be a single dwelling block and this was quickly rectified in subsequent Crown leases after 1972. However the applicant says the consequence of this anomaly was not taken into account in the 2008 reformulated definition of ‘dwelling’ such that what should have been classified as a single dwelling block given this history now falls within the statutory meaning of multi-dwelling blocks.
The Tribunal’s view is that while there may be some merit in the applicant’s argument that this was an unintended consequence, it is nonetheless a consequence. It was a consequence restated in the 6 May 2010 Crown lease variation registered to permit ‘a single dwelling; or multi-unit housing of not more than two (2) dwellings’. If such a consequence is seen as unintended, the ACT Government will need to revisit the definition of ‘dwelling’ as currently provided in the Territory Plan.

Issue 2. Has the respondent made the correct or preferable decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5) dwellings’?

The applicant’s contentions

The applicant contends that the approval will set a precedent which will result in piecemeal over-development and inconsistent re-development in the Page area to the detriment to the neighbourhood. The applicant identified a number of similar sites of “single buildings containing a primary and secondary residence” in the area.[18]
[18] Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 2
The applicant contends that the wider context of this effect should have been considered in making the decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5) dwellings’. Specifically, issues of parking, traffic and traffic visibility, and the hazardous location of the development immediately adjacent to busy Belconnen Way should have been, but in the applicant’s view were not, adequately considered when applying Criterion 1 of the Lease Variation Code. The applicant contends that no explanation was provided as to how the subjective decision that assessed the development as ‘consistent with the criteria’ was reached.[19]
[19] Applicant’s facts and contentions filed 22 February 2016 page 3
The applicant further contends that inadequate consideration was given to whether the site to which the lease variation applied was suitable for development of ‘up to five (5) dwellings’. The applicant contends that given the building density proposed for the site and its location in a natural hollow near a hazardous intersection with Belconnen Way, issues of the adequacy of onsite parking, its effect on on-street parking safety, local traffic congestion and amenity were not adequately considered in determining whether “the land to which the lease applies is suitable for the development or use authorised by the varied lease” Lease Variation Code C1(ii).

The respondent’s contentions

The respondent contends the application is not a review of the merits of DA2014 but rather a review confined to whether it was correct or preferable to approve, subject to conditions, the variation to the Crown lease.
The respondent contends that the application to vary the Crown lease is a ‘development’ that meets the relevant provisions of the Planning Act, specifically section 119(a), because it is consistent with the Lease Variation Code and other relevant codes in so far as they relate to lease variations, and that as required by section 120, the RZ2 Zone Objectives and other relevant provisions have been properly considered.
The respondent contends the consideration given to these relevant matters the correct or preferable decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5) dwellings’ was made.

The parties joined contentions

The parties joined contend the application is not a review of the merits of DA2014.[20] The parties joined further contend that the correct or preferable decision was made to approve, subject to conditions, the variation to the Crown lease. There is the evidence of Karen Walker that proper consideration was given to the Lease Variation Code and all other relevant codes and that this is evident from documents generated in the approval process[21] where attention to these matters was clearly set out.

Tribunal’s conclusion on Issue 2

[20] Parties joined facts and contentions dated 22 March 2016 at [11]
[21] Notably T Documents 32, T Documents 50-54

The respondent makes the valid submission that this application is not a review of DA2014 for which a two-storey building comprising five dwellings was approved on 29 April 2015 and which approval remains current.
Nonetheless DA2015 cannot be approved if the proposed development does not meet the relevant provisions of the Planning Act and/or is inconsistent with the Territory Plan, specifically the RZ2 Zone Objectives and the relevant codes, most specifically the Lease Variation Code and the Multi Unit Code.
The Lease Variation Code has no rule about meeting lease variations generally but C1 provides:
A lease is varied only where all of the following are achieved:
i) the varied lease is consistent with the Territory Plan including all relevant codes
ii) the land to which the lease applies is suitable for the development or use authorised by the varied lease.
There was uncontested evidence from Karen Walker[22] before the Tribunal that the relevant provisions of section 119 of the Planning Act, specifically the section 119(a) requirement that the development be consistent with the relevant codes, in particular the Lease Variation Code, had been considered and were deemed to be met.
[22] Exhibit R1 at [10]-[16]
The requirement of section 120 of the Planning Act is to ‘consider’ a range of matters which include the Zone objectives. The Tribunal accepts the view in Griffith Narrabundah Community Association v ACT Planning and Land Authority[23] that this does “not impose any obligation to make a decision that [is] ‘consistent’ with them.” The Tribunal is guided by the approach used in Scherl at [122] in that regard that the zone objectives “must be borne in mind when applying the Code and also when interpreting codes”. Zone objective e) provides:
Ensure redevelopment is carefully managed so that it achieves a high standard of residential amenity, makes a positive contribution to the neighbourhood and landscape character of the area and does not have unreasonable negative impacts on neighbouring properties.
[23] Griffith Narrabundah Community Association v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2011] ACAT 61 at 38-39
The Tribunal accepts that adequate consideration was given to all necessary matters. The Tribunal finds that the respondent has made the correct or preferable decision to vary the Crown lease to allow ‘up to five (5) dwellings’.
It is useful to say something about the merits of DA2014 even though this is not before the Tribunal given the approved development is clearly too large for the site and does not provide the amenity required. An analysis of the approved plan[24] demonstrates that the proposal would be inconsistent with a number of the requirements of both the RZ2 Zone Objectives and the Multi Unit Code as well as the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code. It is worth highlighting the extent of these inconsistencies when future development in the neighbourhood is considered.
[24] T Documents 147
The Multi Unit Code criteria provide, in the same way as other codes, for an alternative standard if a rule requirement is not met. Nonetheless there is an overriding requirement to meet the RZ2 Zone Objective (e). In this case the cumulative effect across the site of relying on the satisfaction of a significant number of criteria for assessment where rules are not met has resulted in a development that does not meet those objectives, specifically Zone Objective (e).
For instance R29 and C29 of the Code make provisions for front boundary setbacks. The requirements of R29 have not been met on the site and approval appears to have been granted based on C29. The site is a corner block and as such has a front boundary (setback requirement of 6m) and a secondary street frontage (setback requirement of 4m). The front boundary setbacks for the lower and upper floor levels are both 6m.[25] The secondary street frontage setbacks are lower floor level 4m, upper floor level 6m and garage 5.5m.
[25] Evident from T Document 147
The front boundary 6m setback is encroached. This is to a minor degree in the case of all units (with the exception of unit 1) where it is encroached by support blade or fin walls to the narrow porch which are approximately 600mm long. These encroachments were reasonably approved subject to a qualitative assessment.
In the case of unit 1 the encroachment is not minor. The front boundary 6m setback, as well as the secondary street frontage 4m setback to the lower floor level, is encroached by the southeast corner of unit 1. The setback should be determined by a line drawn perpendicular to the front boundaries. The front boundary is an arc at this location. The setback to unit 1 is encroached by the building at least 2m at this corner (not including the blade or fin wall). The encroachment diminishes extending for slightly under 4m in both directions of the external walls of unit 1, to both Belconnen Way and to Petterd Street, until there is no encroachment and the remaining walls comply with the 6m and 4m setbacks as set out in R29. In spite of this gradual diminishment the encroachment is nonetheless significant.
The secondary street frontage 5.5m setback to the garage of unit 1 is also encroached by 1.5 m for its full extent along Petterd Street. These are marked encroachments of unit 1 and the double garage for unit 1 and could not reasonably be approved against the criteria subject to a qualitative assessment.
Similarly, R61 and C61 of the Code make provisions for principal private open space (PPOS). The requirements of R61 have not been met and approval has been granted based on C61. The PPOS for all units are encroached by rectangular water tanks which are not excluded service functions. The PPOS to units 1 and 5 are also further encroached by a structural column. The PPOS to unit 5 is further encroached by a retaining wall which reduces the required 6m minimum dimension (between this wall and the water tank) to approximately 4.5m. The required quantified area of 36 sqm for PPOS is also reduced.
The PPOS of all the units other than unit 5 could reasonably be approved subject to a qualitative assessment. But the diminutions to the PPOS of unit 5 do not achieve an area proportionate to the size of the dwelling, or an extension of the function of the dwelling for relaxation, dining, entertaining and recreation and therefore could not reasonably be approved against the criteria subject to a qualitative assessment.
Additionally, R73 and C73 of the Code make provisions for internal driveways. Neither is reasonably met in the approved development. R 73 a) and c) have not been met as the western end of the driveway is shown to be no more than 500mm from the boundary. It is also not met as the northern end adjacent to this area has no perceptible set back whereas R73 requires a 1m set back. C73 has also not been met as there is insufficient space for the required planting along the property boundary to the northwest area of the internal driveway.
Finally, R82 and C82 of the Code make provisions for visitor parking. Neither is reasonably met in the approved development. The single visitor space provided is located behind the garage to unit 5 at the remotest point from either street; it is not clearly visible from the driveway, and while within 50m of the rear entry gates to the PPOS of each unit it is located more than 50 m from the front entries to each unit.
The driveway is shown as being 5m wide which is under the minimum width as set out in the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code and the relevant AS 2890.1. It is required to be a minimum 5.8m wide.
The development also does not reasonably meet the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code for visitor parking. Given there are five units the Code requires two visitor parking spaces, however only one is provided.
Whilst visitors may park in the street R82 of the Multi Unit Code refers to “spaces on the site”. An analysis of the potential for street parking adjacent to the subject site highlights that Belconnen Way is a major road where parking in the street is not desirable. Parking along Petterd Street is similarly limited due to the close proximity to the major intersection with Belconnen Way, the major stormwater infrastructure, and the driveway to the site. As the development has adopted the option of shared parking spaces for three units on the subject site there is the additional probable need for a resident to park in the street.
The development on the site does not include the additional visitor parking space nor is it obvious how this space could be located on the site, given the extent of development, as there is no available space behind the front zone. The inclusion of a second visitor parking space combined with the additional set back of the garage of unit 1 from Petterd Street and the 1m internal driveway set back at boundaries would require a site that is approximately 4.5m wider in the east west direction than the subject site.
In spite of these defects the merits of DA2014 are not under review and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to that approval. Rather the matter at issue is whether the respondent made the correct decision to vary the Crown lease in DA2015. The Tribunal finds that it did.

Decision

The Tribunal confirms the decision under review to approve DA2015 subject to the existing conditions.

………………………………..
Senior Member T Foley
for and on behalf of the Tribunal

HEARING DETAILS

FILE NUMBER:	AT 101/2015
PARTIES, APPLICANT:	Friends of Hawker Village Incorporated
PARTIES, RESPONDENT:	ACT Planning and Land Authority
PARTIES JOINED
COUNSEL APPEARING, APPLICANT	N/A
COUNSEL APPEARING, RESPONDENT	Ms Katavic
COUNSEL APPEARING, PARTIES JOINED	N/A
SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT	N/A
SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT	ACT Government Solicitor
SOLICITORS FOR PARTIES JOINED	Mr Falcetta, Trinity Law
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS:	Senior Member T Foley (Presiding) Senior Member G Trickett
DATES OF HEARING:	7 April 2016