Village No 22 Pty Limited ACN 620 656 260 v ACT Planning and Land Authority

Village No 22 Pty Limited, the applicant, sought review of a decision by the ACT Planning and Land Authority, the respondent, to refuse an application to subdivide a block of land into 258 single dwelling blocks. The applicant sought to develop the land in accordance with the Estate Development Code (EDC). The application was dismissed by the respondent on the basis that the proposed development did not meet the criteria set out in the EDC, particularly in relation to the preservation of significant vegetation and the desired character of the estate.

The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision, the interpretation of certain terms in the EDC, and whether a "realistic alternative" existed for the proposed development. The Tribunal considered whether the criteria in the EDC were met and whether the respondent's decision was lawful, correct and reasonable. The applicant argued that the proposed development would not significantly alter the character of the estate or the surrounding area, and that there was no realistic alternative to the proposed development.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to review the decision and that the respondent's decision was lawful, correct and reasonable. The Tribunal held that the proposed development did not meet the criteria in the EDC, particularly in relation to the preservation of significant vegetation and the desired character of the estate. The Tribunal found that the proposed development would result in the removal of significant vegetation, which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the estate and the surrounding area. The Tribunal also found that the proposed development did not provide any realistic alternative to the preservation of significant vegetation and the desired character of the estate.

Accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision was lawful, correct and reasonable and that the proposed development did not meet the criteria in the EDC. The Tribunal also found that there was no realistic alternative to the proposed development that would preserve significant vegetation and the desired character of the estate. The Tribunal ordered that the decision under review be confirmed.