Hipkins v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors

In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the applicant sought review of a decision by the respondent, the ACT Planning and Land Authority, to approve a development application for a corner block at Chisholm and Ebden Streets in Ainslie. The applicant argued that the decision was inconsistent with various parts of the Territory Plan, including the plot ratio rule. The respondent initially sought to vary the decision but later submitted that the development should be refused. The first party joined, an architect, provided evidence and relied on an email from Veris asserting the site area, though the accuracy of this assertion was uncertain. The second party joined, the crown lessee and developer, did not file written submissions or evidence.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the site area was correctly calculated and if the plot ratio rule was satisfied. The parties agreed on a site area of 861m², but discrepancies in the documentation and the inability to independently verify this figure led the Tribunal to prefer the information from the site survey and the crown lease, which indicated a site area of 860m². This discrepancy, combined with the applicant's argument that the stairwell area should be included in the gross floor area calculation for every level, meant that the plot ratio rule was not met. As this was a mandatory rule, its non-compliance was sufficient grounds to refuse the development approval.

The Tribunal set aside the respondent's decision and substituted it with a decision refusing the development application. The Tribunal found that the plot ratio rule was not met due to uncertainties in the site area and the inclusion of stairwell area in the gross floor area calculation, leading to the conclusion that the development approval should be refused.