Gerondal and Conservator of Flora & Fauna
[2007] ACTAAT 4
•30 March 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CITATION:GERONDAL AND CONSERVATOR OF FLORA & FAUNA & ANOR [2007] ACTAAT 4 (30 MARCH 2007)
AT06/85
Catchwords: Tree protection – application to undertake prohibited groundwork within protection zone of regulated trees – identity of plants to be removed – whether removal can be undertaken without damage to trees – whether application to Conservator of Flora and Fauna validly made.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989, s 24, 44
Districts Act 2002
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991, ss 254, 255, 256, 259A,
259C, Sch 5
Legislation Act 2001, s 160
Pests Plants and animals Act 2005
Tree Protection Act 2005, ss 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 22, 23, 25, 104,
105, 106, 107, 119
Gerondal and Minister for Planning [2003] ACTAAT 32 (30 June
2003)
Paul Pang Gerondal &Monica Netta Gerondal v Minister for Planning [2004] ACTSC 84 (17 August 2004)
Tradesmen’s Union Club and Ors v Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning & Anor (1997) 131 ACTR 1
Tribunal:Ms P O’Neil, Senior Member
Dr D F McMichael, Senior Member
Ms S Tongue, Senior Member
Date:30 March 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) NO: AT06/85
LAND AND PLANNING DIVISION )
RE: PAUL & MONICA
GERONDAL
ApplicantsAND: CONSERVATOR OF
FLORA & FAUNA
RespondentAND: ACT PLANNING &
LAND AUTHORITY
Party Joined
DECISION
Tribunal : Ms P O’Neil, Senior Member
Dr D McMichael, Senior Member
Ms S Tongue, Senior Member
Date : 30 March 2007
Decision : The decision under review is affirmed.
…………………………….
Senior Member
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) NO: AT06/85
LAND AND PLANNING DIVISION )
RE: PAUL & MONICA
GERONDAL
ApplicantsAND: CONSERVATOR OF
FLORA & FAUNA
RespondentAND: ACT PLANNING &
LAND AUTHORITY
Party Joined
REASONS FOR DECISION
30 March 2007 Ms P O’Neil, Senior Member
Dr D McMichael, Senior Member
Ms S Tongue, Senior Member
Introduction
This is an application to the Tribunal for review of a decision by the Conservator of Flora and Fauna (“the Conservator”) made on 6 November 2006 following reconsideration of an earlier decision made on 12 July 2006, to allow prohibited groundwork in relation to protected trees on Block 45 Section 37 Waramanga (“the subject block”). Mr and Mrs Gerondal, (“the applicants”) are the lessees of that block, which has a street address of 14 Yambina Crescent, Waramanga, ACT.
2. The application to undertake prohibited groundwork was made on 3 April 2006 by Ms Karen Wilden as an agent of the ACT Planning and Land Authority (“the Authority”) as a necessary requirement to allow the Authority to undertake work to remove “bamboo” from the subject block in pursuance of a rectification direction which, it was claimed, had not been complied with by the applicants.
Jurisdiction
3. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989 (“the AAT ACT”) at section 24 gives the Tribunal power to review decisions made in the exercise of powers given by an enactment. Section 107 of the Tree Protection Act 2005 (“the Tree Act”) provides for review by the Tribunal of a decision of the Conservator which is a decision made following an application for reconsideration pursuant to section 105 of the Tree Act.
Applicable Law
4. The Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 (“the Land Act”) regulates the activities of the Authority, which is the statutory authority responsible for granting, administering and varying leases on behalf of the Executive of the ACT. The Authority has the power under sections 254, or 255 and 256 of the Land Act to order occupiers of land in the ACT to do, or stop doing, certain “controlled activities” set out in Schedule 5 of the Land Act. For example, an order may be made for failure to keep a leasehold clean (Schedule 5, Item 3). Further, rectification directions may be issued pursuant to section 259A of the Land Act if the work required under an order is not carried out. In the event of failure to comply with a rectification direction within the time period stated, section 259C provides that the Authority may authorise a person to enter the place and carry out the rectification work required by the direction.
5. The object of the Tree Act is, among other things, to protect individual trees in the urban area that have exceptional qualities because of their natural and cultural heritage values or their contribution to the urban landscape (section 3(1)(a)) and to promote a broad appreciation of the role of trees in the urban environment and the benefits of good tree management and sound arboricultural practices (section 3(1)(f)). Section 17 of the Tree Act makes it an offence to carry out prohibited groundwork that damages a protected tree. Recognising that such work may, on occasion, be necessary and appropriate, the legislature has established a scheme for approval to be sought from the Conservator for such work to be undertaken (Tree Act, sections 22 to 25). The Conservator is tasked with deciding whether the proposed activity is an acceptable risk in a tree protection zone.
6. The Tree Act applies to trees on built-up urban areas as declared by the Minister (section 7). Schedule 1 Part 4 of the Tree Protection (Built-Up Urban Areas) Declaration 2006 (No.1) declares that Waramanga is a built-up urban area.
7. Section 8 of the Tree Act defines a “protected tree” to include a “regulated tree” and section 10 defines a “regulated tree” as including a living tree on leased land within a “tree management precinct” which is not a registered tree, a pest plant under the Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 or a palm tree and which is 12 metres or more high. Pursuant to section 119 of the Tree Act the built-up urban area in each district under the Districts Act 2002 is taken to be a “tree management precinct” on the commencement of the Act (29 March 2006) pending areas being declared under Part 5 of the Act.
8. Section 14 of the Tree Act defines “prohibited groundwork” as including:
(a)in relation to the protection zone for a protected tree—a person does prohibited groundwork in the protection zone if the person—
……….
(iii)does either of the following in the protection zone, other than in
cultivating the soil for horticultural purposes:
(A)excavates to a depth greater than 10cm over an area 4m2 or
larger;
…………..
9. Section 22 of the Tree Act sets out the requirements for making an application for approval for an activity that would be a tree damaging activity. The application may be made by a “person” in writing. The Legislation Act 2001 which guides the interpretation of ACT statutes in section 160(1) defines “persons” as including a “corporation” which includes a “body politic”.
10. Sections 25 and 106 of the Tree Act set out the matters to which the Conservator must have regard in making a decision, including:
(a) the approval criteria; and
(b) the advice (if any) of the advisory panel; and
(c) anything else the conservator considers relevant.
11. The Tree Protection (Approval Criteria) Determination 2006 (No.2) (a disallowable instrument) contains criteria for approving activity that would or may damage a protected tree or be prohibited groundwork in the protected zone for a protected tree or declared site.
Background to the decision under review
12. The Authority’s powers for managing land use have ancient origins. For centuries, on many continents, people have looked to the law to resolve the often conflicting demands of neighbouring occupiers to express themselves while quietly enjoying their land. Both the common law and statute provide remedies.
13. In order to understand the origin of this matter, an outline of its history may be helpful. Mr and Mrs Gerondal began building extensions to their house in the 1970s, but have never been able to bring the work to completion. In December 2002, a delegate of the Minister for Planning made an order under section 256 of the Land Act requiring the applicants to complete the extensions by November 2004 and to significantly reduce the extent of overgrowth of trees and vegetation on the block and to keep the block in a clean maintained state. The decision to make that order was appealed to the Tribunal. Following a comprehensive review of the history of the matter, President Peedom set aside the order and substituted his own orders which, inter alia, required the applicants “to clean up the leasehold block …….. in accordance with the schedule” and the Schedule at point 3, required them to:
(a)trim or prune all vegetation on the block that is bamboo that extends beyond any boundary of the block ………; and
(b)trim, prune or remove all vegetation on the block that is bamboo to the reasonable satisfaction of the Territory
by or before 31 August 2003.
14. This decision was appealed to the ACT Supreme Court, which on 17 August 2004 dismissed the appeal, Crispin J commenting (at para 86):
The directions require the appellants to trim or remove the bamboo to the reasonable satisfaction of the Territory. Whilst I understand the heartfelt objections which the appellants have to the direction, it seems to me to be a perfectly clear order and one which could not be impugned on the basis suggested.
Following the decision of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal set 6 December 2004 as the new date for completion of the work required by the order.
15. Following the issuing and execution of a search warrant in November 2005, on 20 December 2005 Ms Karen Wilden, a delegate of the Authority, gave notice of a rectification direction under section 259A of the Land Act requiring the applicants, by 31 January 2006, to:
…….. remove all vegetation on the land that is bamboo by digging out the entire plant both cane and rhizomes …….
on the grounds that they had failed to comply with the order requiring them to remove, by 6 December 2004, all vegetation on the land that is bamboo.
16. It appears that the Authority later deemed that the applicants had failed to comply with the notice and decided to take action under section 259C of the Land Act, which empowers the authority to authorize a person to enter the place to carry out the work required by a rectification notice.
17. The Tribunal notes that the terms of the notice and the question of compliance are in dispute and these issues are discussed below.
18. Three trees in the front garden of the subject block are regulated trees pursuant to section 10 of the Tree Act. In both the Conservator’s decision and these reasons for decision the trees are referred to as trees 1, 2 and 3 numbering consecutively with tree number 3 being the tree closest to the driveway entrance.
19. Since the rectification work required by the Authority involved removing bamboo growing within two metres of the edge of the canopy of the regulated trees, ie. within their protection zone (section 11, Tree Act) it was necessary for the Authority to seek the approval of the Conservator for the work to be undertaken. An application was made by Ms Wilden, as agent of the Authority, on 3 April 2006. On 12 July 2006 the Conservator gave notice of approval for the work pursuant to section 104 of the Tree Act. The following conditions were imposed:
1.That the bamboo (including the rhizomes) is removed in such a manner that does not destabilise or kill the trees.
2.The works should be supervised by a qualified arborist to ensure that the trees are not damaged.
20. On 8 August 2006 the applicants applied for reconsideration of the Conservator’s decision pursuant to section 105 of the Tree Act. The Conservator sought the advice of a Tree Advisory Panel, pursuant to section 106 of the Tree Act. A member of the Panel, Mr Phillip Unger, visited the property and prepared a report for the panel. It stated:
The proposed groundwork is unlikely to cause any adverse effects to the subject trees providing any work undertaken is done in such a manner that does not destabilize or kill the trees. Any work ……… should be supervised by a qualified arborist …...
21. The Panel recommended that the application be granted, that is, that the tree damaging activity could proceed. Following receipt of that recommendation, on 6 November 2006, the Conservator, upon reconsideration of the earlier decision, confirmed the earlier decision and notified the applicants.
Written and oral submissions
22. The statements of facts and contentions were received from the applicants on 12 February 2006 and from the Conservator and the Authority on 5 March 2007. The applicants filed a reply on 9 March 2007. At a hearing on 12 and 13 March 2007 the Tribunal heard oral evidence and submissions from the applicants, and oral submissions from the Authority and the Conservator. It had the benefit of oral evidence of Mr Phillip Unger and written expert evidence from a qualified arborist, Mr Geoff Butler. The applicants offered to call Mr Butler to provide supplementary oral evidence but the Tribunal considered this unnecessary, as there was no disagreement on substantive issues between the expert witnesses.
The applicant’s evidence and contentions
23. The applicants, who were self-represented before the Tribunal, presented arguments based on fact and law. They perceive discrimination against them because of their past history with the Authority. The Tribunal was made aware of this history from the applicants’ statement of facts and contentions and the earlier Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions (Gerondal and Minister for Planning [2003] ACTAAT 32 (30 June 2003); Paul Pang Gerondal & Monica Netta Gerondal v Minister for Planning [2004] ACTSC 84 (17 August 2004)).
24. The applicants referred, in their written and oral statements, to matters which are not strictly relevant to the decision for review by this Tribunal and the Tribunal confines its decision to the matters before it. However, for completeness, it has addressed “Other Issues” below, including the applicants’ argument that the process leading to the Conservator’s decision is flawed because the search warrant that led to the Authority’s examination of the property and the subsequent rectification notice are flawed.
25. The applicants’ evidence and contentions in relation to the relevant decision relate to four main areas.
26. First, the applicants argue the Conservator’s decision is defective because of the failure to correctly identify the plants in the garden. The applicants do not concede that there is bamboo present in the relevant area and state that the plant is Arundo donax, a member of the grass family with various common names including Giant Reed and Elephant Grass. They refer to the written evidence of Mr Geoff Butler, who viewed photographs provided by them and stated that the plant species appeared to be Arundo donax. He wrote:
Arundo is a genus of the Poaceae (grass) family…The species is present in Australia though its use in cultivation is limited by law in warmer parts of Australia due to its weed tendencies…(it) is unlikely to become a problem in cool temperate climates, though the influence of climate change on naturalization of this and many other species from similar climates is unknown. It is not a listed species in the ACT.
27. Secondly, the applicants argue that the person seeking approval for tree damaging activity, the Tree Advisory Panel and the Conservator have failed to accurately measure and identify the area to be subjected to groundwork. The substance of their argument appears to be that the imprecision in the measurements makes compliance impossible.
28. Thirdly, the applicants argue the Conservator has not taken into account the relevant consideration of the soil disturbance to a depth of 10 cm or more would affect “the intertwined root system of a subterranean eco-system” and would create long term damage to that ecosystem. They suggested that “if you take away one of the elements and the rest will suffer” and that a qualified arborist would not be able to assess the long term impact of such soil disturbance.
29. Fourthly, the applicants argue inaccuracies and mistakes made by the officer completing the application form render it invalid. In particular, they refer to the Authority officer inserting “ACTPLA” in the box marked “company”; the letter accompanying the application confusing an order made by the Authority with the order made by the Tribunal; and a failure to accurately measure and define the relevant protected area. The applicants also argue that the Authority did not provide copies of the relevant AAT and Supreme Court decisions to the Conservator in support of the application. The applicants also perceive other irregularities in the form used by the Conservator.
30. Finally, and importantly, the applicants are concerned about the risks associated with undertaking the groundwork. The trees are planted on mounds and the applicants are concerned that any disruption to the root system could lead to them falling. They gave evidence that a tree in the garden close to the house had fallen some time previously. They further contended that, because the mounds on which the trees were growing had a slope of greater than 18 degrees, they fell within the category of land referred to in schedule 5 item 7 of the Land Act as requiring an order for any removal or interference with vegetation.
31. In essence, the applicants argue that the rectification notice is not capable of being complied with.
The Conservator’s evidence and contentions
32. Mr Freer, the legal representative of the Conservator, drew attention to the T Documents which set out the facts relating to the decision under review. These showed that a valid application for groundwork in relation to protected trees was received and a Tree Advisory Panel was appointed. The Conservator had utilized the expertise of Mr Phillip Unger who teaches plant protection as part of the Horticulture Certificate at Canberra Institute of Technology. He has had many years’ experience in agriculture and horticulture training programs. He was the member of the Panel who conducted the inspection and prepared the Panel’s report that informed the Conservator’s decision.
33. The Tree Advisory Panel recommended approval of the application for the groundwork on the basis that “the proposed ground work is unlikely to cause any adverse effects to the subject trees provided that any work undertaken is done in such a manner that does not de-stabilize or kill the trees. Any work undertaken within the protection zone of the subject tree should be supervised by a qualified arborist to ensure that the trees are not damaged.”
34. The Conservator had had regard to the Panel’s report in accordance with section 25 (3) of the Tree Act before making the reconsidered decision. He contended that there was no basis for the Conservator’s decision to be set aside and submitted that it should be affirmed by the Tribunal.
The evidence and contentions of the Authority
35. Mr McCarthy, the legal representative of the Authority, also addressed the facts relating to the decision. He argued that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to reviewing the Conservator’s decision to grant the Authority’s application to conduct the relevant groundwork and does not extend to reviewing the Authority’s decision to authorise a person to conduct rectification work.
36. He cited the report of the Tree Advisory Panel and the evidence of Mr Unger that the impact of the groundwork would be “minimal” if the stated conditions were followed in conducting the groundwork.
37. He rejected the applicants’ evidence that the presence of bamboo had not been verified. He drew attention to Mr Unger’s report and evidence that a species of bamboo is present and is intermingled with Arondo cane. He contended that bamboo should be given its ordinary meaning and drew the Tribunal’s attention to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “bamboo”: “any of numerous, mainly tropical, giant grasses belonging to the genus Bambusa and various related genera.” In his submission, Arundo was a genus related to Bambusa and to the lay person, the cane would be perceived as a kind of “bamboo”.
Consideration of the main issues
38. The Tribunal proceeds on the basis that the following matters are not in dispute. First, the three trees at the front of the subject block are regulated trees and therefore protected. Secondly, it is proposed to carry out prohibited groundwork within the meaning of section 14 of the Act and that requires approval from the Conservator.
The nature of bamboo
39. The rectification notice of 20 December 2005 required the applicants to “remove all vegetation on the land that is bamboo by digging out the entire plant both cane and rhizome.” The Conservator’s original decision included the condition “(T)hat the bamboo (including the rhizomes) is removed in such a manner that does not destabilize or kill the trees”.
40. There was considerable evidence before the Tribunal about the meaning of bamboo. Expert evidence on the plant species present was provided by Mr Phillip Unger (relied on by the Conservator) and the expert relied on by the applicants, Mr Geoff Butler. Mr Butler (who is the principal of Geoff Butler & Associates, Environmental and Horticultural Consultancy, with many years of experience in horticulture) based his opinion on photographs provided by the applicants and identified only one species as being depicted, Arundo donax. However, Mr Unger had visited the site and during an inspection by the Tribunal, demonstrated that there were two bamboo-like species intermingled – one being Arunda donax and the other a species of bamboo, possibly of the genus Phyllostachys.
41. The Tribunal understands the applicants’ argument that, in applying the Tree Act, accurate botanical usage is desirable. On the other hand, in the law there is an assumption that words are given their ordinary natural meaning. Dictionary definitions are commonly used by courts and tribunals to interpret the ordinary meaning of words that are not otherwise defined in statutes. The Tribunal noted the applicants’ objection to the Tribunal relying on a definition from an English dictionary, but it observes notes that the Macquarie Dictionary definition of “bamboo” is “any of the woody or treelike tropical and semitropical grasses of the genus Bambusa and allied genera” which does not differ significantly from that in the Oxford English Dictionary. Consequently, the Tribunal interprets bamboo broadly to mean all the bamboo-like grasses present in the relevant area, including Arundo donax.
42. Based on its own observations and expert evidence, the Tribunal finds that Arundo cane and a species of true bamboo are intermingled on the subject block in the relevant area and agrees that it would be impossible to remove one without the other.
The protection zone
43. During its site inspection the Tribunal noted the area that would be involved in the proposed groundwork. Observation reveals relatively little or no evidence of bamboo and/or Arundo cane in the area of trees 2 and 3. Oral evidence from both parties confirmed this. Tree 1 appeared to have two branches but the applicants asserted that there were in fact two separate trees (which they had planted) close together, only one of which was of the size that would make it a regulated tree. Nevertheless, the larger of the two, tree 1, has a large area of its protection zone affected by the bamboo. Oral evidence from Mr Unger confirmed this. The applicants agreed that Arundo cane was present in the area close to the tree.
44. The Tribunal has had regard to the written evidence provided by the Authority and the applicants that bamboo and Arundo cane have spreading tendencies. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it unnecessary to determine the exact measurements of the area in which the groundwork is to be conducted. To give effect to the original order and the rectification notice, it will be necessary to remove all evidence of true bamboo and Arundo cane from the relevant area and the Conservator’s approval extends to any such material that exists within the protection zone.
Dangers and the conditions imposed
45. The applicants are concerned about the continued stability of the area if the groundwork occurs, especially during a time of limited rainfall. The applicants also object to the use of herbicides because of Mrs Gerondal’s medical condition.
46. The Tribunal has had regard to the conditions imposed by the Conservator, viz:
1.That any work undertaken is done in such a manner that does not destabilize or kill the trees.
2.Any work undertaken within the tree protection zone of the trees should be supervised by a qualified arborist to ensure that the trees are not damaged.
47. The Tribunal is satisfied that the conditions imposed are appropriate. If, in the event, the qualified arborist finds that the bamboo-like plants cannot be removed without putting tree 1 at risk, then clearly the removal work must cease. If it is intended to use herbicides, then arrangements should be made for Mrs Gerondal to be absent from the subject block for whatever time is required. As Mr and Mrs Gerondal spend some time living near Moruya in New South Wales, this should create no difficulty.
Other Issues
48. As noted above, the applicants’ evidence and contentions covered a range of issues not directly relevant - although associated - to the issues before the Tribunal.
49. The applicants referred to the validity of the search warrant issued under section 269 of the Land Act and argued that the rectification notice was also invalid. However, these matters are not under review by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 44 of the AAT Act does not authorize the Tribunal to review the correctness of an antecedent decision which might be thought to be of relevance to the decision under review (Tradesmen’s Union Club and Ors v Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning & Anor (1997) 131 ACTR 1).
50. They further noted that the rectification notice (and the previous Tribunal decision of 30 June 2003) were not submitted to the Conservator in support of the application for this decision. However, the Tribunal can find nothing in the Tree Act which would require the submission of such documents with an application to conduct prohibited groundwork and notes that a letter dated 3 April 2007 from Ms Wilden to the Conservator, in which the background to the application was set out, did accompany the application.
51. The applicants argued that they should not be required to remove the plant material. They asserted that they had complied with the order of the Tribunal made in 2003 when they were required to “trim or prune” the bamboo. They claimed that the Authority did not inspect the subject block following their compliance and there had subsequently been re-growth of the bamboo. However, this Tribunal notes that the Tribunal decision of 30 June 2003 was that the applicant should “trim, prune or remove the bamboo to the satisfaction of the Territory” and it appears that the Territory is not satisfied with what has been done, given the subsequent action by the Territory in the person of the Authority to direct rectification.
52. The applicants argued that Ms Wilden, the officer who completed the application form seeking the Conservator’s approval, had since moved to another position and there had been no legal transfer of the approval to another designated officer pursuant to the Tree Act. The Authority and the Conservator argued that, since the form was completed by a delegate of the Authority, the approval remained extant. The Tribunal can find nothing in the Tree Act that would require an approval based on an application made by a person on behalf of a company or a body politic to be formally transferred to some other person if the person who made the application no longer held the same position and concludes that the approval is extant in the name of the Authority.
53. The applicants referred to their requests for documents under Freedom of Information Act 1989 and argued that they had been denied access to certain documents. They stated that they had received approximately 600 folios of documents but were denied access to over 90 documents on the grounds of legal professional privilege. This privilege relates to documents for which confidentiality of communication between a lawyer and his or her client is sought. Just as the applicants would not be expected to disclose communications with their lawyer so the government has the privilege not to waive confidentiality of communication with its lawyers. However this privilege does not extend to documents that the Tribunal must access in order to reach its decision. The Tribunal is satisfied that it, and all parties before it, had access to all relevant documents for determination of this application for review.
54. The applicants referred to schedule 5 item 7 of the Land Act and argued that it is an offence to remove vegetation whether dead or alive on land with a slope of 18 or more degrees. However, it is not an offence to remove such vegetation if an order has been made as has been done in this case. Be that as it may, the Tribunal is not persuaded that schedule 5 item 7 applies to what is no more than a small hillock on otherwise relatively flat ground.
55. The applicants argue that bamboo has not been declared a notifiable pest plant. However that it has not been so designated is irrelevant to these proceedings. An order to remove the bamboo has been made in order to keep the leasehold clean and there is no requirement that such an order can be made only in relation to pest plants.
56. Finally, in relation to the applicants’ concerns about the Conservator’s form for tree damaging activity applications, the Tribunal notes that the Tree Act requires only that the application be in writing and, if a form has been approved under section 110 of the Tree Act, on that approved form. Mr Freer stated that the form in question was an approved form and that while it was clear that if relevant information was not provided, there could be a delay in dealing with the application if the Conservator sought further information under section 23(1), in this case, the Conservator had accepted it as sufficient. The Tribunal is satisfied that, if certain parts of the form were not completed in full, any omissions would not affect the validity of the application for approval, provided the Conservator considered that sufficient information had been provided for an appropriate decision to be made.
Conclusion
57. The expert evidence, while not unequivocal, is that the groundwork can be conducted without damaging the regulated trees if done in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Conservator. Applying the law to the facts before it, the Tribunal affirms the Conservator’s decision.
FORM 33
PUBLICATION DETAILS
TO BE PUBLISHED
To be completed by Member's Staff
________________________________________________________________________
PART A FILE NO: AT06/85
APPLICANTS: PAUL & MONICA GERONDAL
RESPONDENT: CONSERVATOR OF FLORA & FAUNA
PARTY JOINED: ACT PLANNING & LAND AUTHORITY
COUNSEL APPEARING: APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT: MR A FREER
PARTY JOINED: MR G MCCARTHY
SOLICITORS: APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT: KJB LAW
PARTY JOINED: ACT GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR
OTHER:APPLICANT: SELVES
RESPONDENT:
PARTY JOINED:
TRIBUNAL MEMBER/S: MS P O’NEIL, SENIOR MEMBER
DR D F MCMICHAEL, SENIOR MEMBER
MS S TONGUE, SENIOR MEMBER
DATE/S OF HEARING: 12 & 13 MARCH 2007 PLACE: CANBERRA
DATE OF DECISION: 30 MARCH 2007 PLACE: CANBERRA
_______________________________________________________________________
PART B
RECOMMENDATION:
FULL REPORT ( ) CASE NOTE ( ) UNREPORTED DECISION (X)
COMMENTS:
1
1
7