KAPILA and CITY OF STIRLING

In the case of Kapila v City of Stirling, the applicant sought an extension of the term of a development approval granted for a property on Princess Road, Balga. The City of Stirling had already extended the term of the approval by one year, but denied the applicant's request for a further extension. The applicant appealed the council's decision to the Planning and Environment Tribunal, which subsequently dismissed the application for review. The primary issues before the tribunal were the interpretation of the local planning scheme provisions concerning the extension of development approval terms and the relevant considerations in exercising the discretion to grant such an extension.

The tribunal considered whether the term of the development approval could be extended more than once, according to the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions. The tribunal found that the term of the development approval could indeed be extended more than once. It then turned to the relevant considerations that should be taken into account when exercising the discretion to extend the term of a development approval. These considerations included whether the planning framework had changed substantially since the development approval was granted, whether the development would likely receive approval now, and whether the applicant had actively and relatively conscientiously pursued the implementation of the development approval. The tribunal held that the council had properly exercised its discretion in declining the application for a further extension of the term of the development approval.

The tribunal also addressed the nature of the review proceedings, determining that it did not 'stand in the shoes' of the original decision-maker as at the date when the reviewable decision was made, but rather as at the date of the tribunal review. This meant that the tribunal could consider the current state of the planning framework and other relevant factors in making its decision. Ultimately, the tribunal affirmed the council's decision to refuse the applicant's request for a further extension of the term of the development approval. The tribunal's decision was based on its finding that the council had properly exercised its discretion in declining the application, taking into account the relevant considerations and the current state of the planning framework.