Shatzman v ACT Planning and Land Authority

The applicant, Shatzman, brought an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) seeking a review of a decision by the ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA) to approve, subject to conditions, the demolition of a number of dwellings in Forrest and the construction of a six-storey apartment building in their place. The application was opposed by the ACTPLA, and Mr John Gardner, who had previously resided in one of the dwellings to be demolished, applied to join the proceedings as a party. The key issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Gardner's interests were sufficiently affected to warrant his inclusion as a party in the proceedings.

The Tribunal considered the distinction between being joined as an applicant and as a party. It held that the distinction was significant because the criteria for being joined as an applicant were broader than those for being joined as a party. The Tribunal found that Mr Gardner's concerns about the demolition of his former family home and the proposed redevelopment, as well as his objection to the removal of a regulated tree, were legitimate. However, it held that his interests were not sufficient to warrant him being joined as a party in the proceedings. The Tribunal found that Mr Gardner's concerns were more than an emotional or intellectual concern, but they did not rise to the level of a material detriment as required by section 408 of the Planning and Development Act 2007.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr Gardner's application to be joined as a party in the proceedings. It held that Mr Gardner's interests were not affected to the extent required to warrant his inclusion as a party in the proceedings. The Tribunal found that Mr Gardner's concerns were valid, but they did not rise to the level of a material detriment as required by section 408 of the Planning and Development Act 2007. The substantive application for review of the decision by the ACTPLA was therefore heard without Mr Gardner as a party.