Javelin Projects v ACT Planning and Land Authority - [2017] ACAT 87

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JAVELIN PROJECTS PTY LTD v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY & ANOR (Administrative Review) [2017] ACAT 87

AT 8/2017
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – planning and development – RZ1 zone – meaning of ‘single dwelling block’ – Multi Unit Housing Development Code – whether application should be approved having regard to matters listed in section 120 of the Planning and Development Act 2007
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 9, 68
Planning and Development Act 2007 ss 53, 55, 113, 115, 119, 120, 121, 139, 162
Territory Plan

Subordinate
Legislation cited: Multi-Unit Housing Development Code
Building Code of Australia

Cases cited: Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell (2012) 7 ACTLR 15
Baptist Community Services v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2015] ACTCA 3
Deakin Residents Association v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2015] ACAT 37
Noah's Ark Resources Centre Inc v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2017] ACAT 44

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

Date of Orders:  27 October 2017
Date of Reasons for Decision:         27 October 2017
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          AT 8/2017

BETWEEN:
JAVELIN PROJECTS PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY

Respondent

AND:FRIENDS OF HAWKER VILLAGE

Party Joined

TRIBUNAL: Senior Member Prof T Foley (Presiding)
Senior Member G Trickett

DATE:27 October 2017
ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The decision under review to refuse the proposal lodged for DA201630177, as now amended, is confirmed.

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.Javelin Projects Pty Ltd (the applicant) has sought review of a decision of the ACT Planning and Land Authority (the respondent) to refuse DA 201630177 pursuant to section 113(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (the Planning Act). Friends of Hawker Village Incorporated (the party joined) was joined to the proceeding by order of 6 March 2017.
2.Jurisdiction to review the respondent’s decision is conferred on the Tribunal by section 162 of the Planning Act which is an authorising law for the purposes of section 9 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (the ACAT Act). The review is an application for review by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to section 68 of the ACAT Act.
3.In the reasons below, a reference to ‘ACAT’ or ‘tribunal’ refers to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal generally, whereas ‘Tribunal’ refers to the members who heard the application.

The hearing

4.The matter was heard on 1 and 2 June and 10 and 14 July 2017. The Tribunal and the parties conducted a view on the morning of 1 June of the site and conducted a short tour of the surrounding area on foot and by car. 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.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Javelin Projects v ACT Planning and Land Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] ACAT 87
Decision Date: 27 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) was asked to review a decision made by the ACT Planning and Land Authority to refuse a development application for a commercial and retail precinct at the Woden Town Centre in Canberra. The applicant, Javelin Projects, sought to develop the site under the ACT's Development Act and was represented by counsel. The ACT Planning and Land Authority was represented by a Senior Planner.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the decision of the authority to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. Javelin Projects argued that the refusal was unreasonable and that there were procedural errors in the way the authority had handled the application. The authority contended that the refusal was justified on the basis that the proposal did not comply with the relevant planning scheme and that the development would have significant adverse environmental impacts.

The tribunal found that the authority's decision was lawful and reasonable, and that there had been no procedural unfairness. The tribunal held that the proposal did not comply with the planning scheme, in particular, the requirement for the development to be consistent with the surrounding character of the area. The tribunal also found that the authority had adequately considered the environmental impacts of the development and had not erred in law or procedure in reaching its decision. The tribunal dismissed the application and confirmed the decision of the authority to refuse the development application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The decision under review to refuse the proposal lodged for DA201630177, as now amended, is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.