Peraic v ACT Planning and Land Authority

In the matter of Peraic v ACT Planning and Land Authority, the dispute revolved around the approval of an amended development proposal, subject to certain conditions, by the ACT Planning and Land Authority. The applicants challenged this reconsideration decision, arguing that the proposal was a "very bad design" due to various issues such as the property's incongruity with the existing streetscape, parking constraints, heating and solar access concerns, and limited outdoor space for residents. They sought to have the reconsideration decision set aside and the development approval refused. The legal issues before the court were whether the amended proposal sufficiently addressed the reasons for the refusal of the original development application and whether it complied with the relevant codes and criteria set out in the Territory Plan.

The court held that the Authority's reconsideration decision was subject to correction under section 196 of the Planning and Development Act 2007. The court noted that the amendment did not change the actual development approved or its conditions. The applicants' challenge to the reconsideration decision hinged on the argument that the amended proposal did not adequately address the reasons for refusal of the original proposal. The court acknowledged that the decision to approve or reject a development proposal must be based on compliance with the relevant codes and criteria in the Territory Plan. However, the court found that the amended proposal did address the reasons for refusal of the original proposal and complied with the relevant codes and criteria. Therefore, the reconsideration decision was confirmed, with certain conditions attached to the approval.

The final orders of the Tribunal were as follows: the reconsideration decision dated 2 April 2019 was varied by adding specific conditions of approval, including relocating the two clothes lines, planting additional Bradford pear trees, and ensuring greater separation between the dwellings. The reconsideration decision was otherwise confirmed, and the amended proposal was approved subject to the specified conditions.