act civil & administrative...
TRANSCRIPT
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
COSTIN & PYKE v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY & ANOR (Administrative Review) [2018] ACAT 129
AT 20, 21, 49 and 50 of 2018
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW — planning approval — supportive housing – conformity with Crown lease issued after development approval – use of community facilities zone land — subject block outside a designated bush fire prone area — adequacy of parking — decision confirmed
Legislation cited: Districts Act 2002 s 7Planning and Development Act 2007 ss 50, 120, 247, 340
Cases cited: Gingell & Anor v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2018] ACAT 62Lourandos and Anor & ACT Planning & Land Authority and Ors [2011] ACAT 25
Tribunal: Presidential Member G McCarthySenior Member R Pegrum
Date of Orders: 15 August 2018Date of Reasons for Decision: 18 December 2018
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AT 20/2018
BETWEEN:
WARWICK BRUCE COSTINApplicant
AND:
ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITYRespondent
AND:
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC HOUSING RENEWAL TASKFORCE
Party Joined
TRIBUNAL: Presidential Member G McCarthySenior Member R Pegrum
DATE: 15 August 2018
ORDERThe Tribunal orders that:
1. The decision under review is confirmed, save for a variation to refer to “Block 3” in substitution for “Block 1”.
………………Signed………………Presidential Member G McCarthyFor and on behalf of the Tribunal
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AT 21/2018
BETWEEN:
ANDREW PYKEApplicant
AND:
ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITYRespondent
AND:
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC HOUSING RENEWAL TASK FORCE
Party Joined
TRIBUNAL: Presidential Member G McCarthySenior Member R Pegrum
DATE: 15 August 2018
ORDERThe Tribunal orders that:
1. The decision under review is confirmed, save for a variation to refer to “Block 3” in substitution for “Block 1”.
………………Signed………………Presidential Member G McCarthyFor and on behalf of the Tribunal
2
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AT 49/2018
BETWEEN:
ANDREW PYKEApplicant
AND:
ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITYRespondent
AND:
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC HOUSING RENEWAL TASK FORCE
Party Joined
TRIBUNAL: Presidential Member G McCarthySenior Member R Pegrum
DATE: 15 August 2018
ORDERThe Tribunal orders that:
1. The decision under review is confirmed, save for a variation to refer to “Blocks 3 and 4, Section 45” in substitution for “Block 1 Section 45”.
………………… Signed………………Presidential Member G McCarthyFor and on behalf of the Tribunal
3
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AT 50/2018
BETWEEN:
WARWICK BRUCE COSTINApplicants
AND:
ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITYRespondent
AND:
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC HOUSING RENEWAL TASK FORCE
Party Joined
TRIBUNAL: Presidential Member G McCarthySenior Member R Pegrum
DATE: 15 August 2018
ORDERThe Tribunal orders that:
1. The decision under review is confirmed, save for a variation to refer to “Blocks 3 and 4, Section 45” in substitution for “Block 1 Section 45”.
……………… Signed………………Presidential Member G McCarthyFor and on behalf of the Tribunal
4
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. In proceedings AT 20 and 21 of 2018, Mr Costin and Mr Pyke applied to the
Tribunal for review of a decision of the ACT Planning and Land Authority
(the Authority) made on 14 February 2018 to approve construction of 20
single-storey townhouses with associated garages, landscape, paving and other
site works on an eastern portion of Block 1, Section 45, Chapman. Block 1 is
within the Community Facilities Zone (the CF Zone).
2. At the time of the decision, Block 1 was unleased territory land. With reference
to a certificate of title issued on 15 June 2018, Block 1 is now divided into
Blocks 3 and 4. The division is reflected in Deposited Plan 11575 registered
under section 7 of the Districts Act 2002. The proposed works are to be
constructed on Block 3 (the subject block). The certificate of title records the
Australian Capital Territory as the registered proprietor. The purpose clause in
the Crown lease dated 14 June 2018 states that the land is to be used “for the
purpose of supportive housing only”, which is a permitted use in the CF Zone.
3. The applications in proceedings AT 20 and 21 of 2018 were identical. Mr
Arthur of counsel represented both applicants. His submissions, written and
oral, applied equally to each application. All evidence received in one
proceeding was received as evidence in the other. In our reasons, we have
therefore dealt with the applications as if they were one. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the Tribunal made orders confirming the decision under review,
save for a variation of the identified Block number from “Block 1” to “Block
3”. We stated we would publish our reasons. We now do so.
4. In proceedings AT 49 and 50 of 2018, Mr Costin and Mr Pyke applied to the
Tribunal for review of the Authority’s decision to approve an extension of the
existing stormwater main and sewer main, a new water tie, footpath, landscape
and associated site and verge works. This proposed work is necessary to support
the proposed townhouses. Towards the close of the hearing on 13, 14 and
15 August 2018, Mr Arthur advised that the applicants no longer pressed their
applications in proceedings AT 49 and 50 of 2018. The Tribunal therefore made
orders confirming the Authority’s decision, save for a variation to identify the
5
new block number for the subject block. Where the applications were not
pressed, the Tribunal does not deal with them further.
5. The applicants challenged the approval to construct the townhouses and
associated works on the subject block on several grounds. As the hearing
unfolded, many of those grounds were no longer pressed and so we do not deal
with them further. We deal with the issues that remained.
Supportive housing
6. The applicants contended that because, at the time the decision was made, there
was no Crown lease in place permitting supportive housing, the approval should
be understood as approval for works constituting multi-unit housing which is a
prohibited development on community facility land. The applicants submitted
that without a lease restricting use of the land to supportive housing, the
development could not comply with rule 1 of the Community Facilities Zone
Development Code (the CFZ Code), which restricts the occupation of
individual dwellings to persons in need of support.
7. In our view, the substance of this argument fell away upon registration of the
Crown lease which, among other things, permits supportive housing and limits
the use of the subject block to that purpose. The Tribunal reviews a decision
afresh by reference to the evidence before it which can include evidence that
was not before the original decision-maker. The evidence before the Tribunal
included the Crown lease. All that need be said is that the proposed
development can only be used for the purpose of supportive housing, which is a
permitted use on community facility land. The lease purpose clause also
achieves compliance with Rule 1 of the CFZ Code.
8. The applicants next submitted that it is ‘notorious’ that the ACT Government
intends to use the developments on the subject block for public housing. They
refer to the absence of any information in the public domain that describes the
characteristics of persons in need of support, or the nature of the support
services to be provided in the proposed townhouses which may (or would)
impact on the extent to which persons providing support services would need to
be present or visit or how many would need to do so. The applicants relied on
6
the witness statement of Ms Anca Costin dated 1 August 2018 in which she
described her searches on ACT government websites and her inability to find
any information in relation to supportive housing.
9. The applicants submitted that where there is no evidence that the party joined
intends to use the proposed development for supportive housing, or the kind of
intended supportive housing, and where the townhouses would readily lend
themselves to be used as mainstream public housing which would constitute
multi-unit housing contrary to the Crown lease and which is a prohibited use on
community facility land, the development should be refused.
10. The applicants relied upon section 50 of the Planning and Development Act
2007 (the P and D Act), which mandates that a development proposal must be
refused that is inconsistent with the Territory Plan. It was submitted that where
the Tribunal cannot or should not be satisfied that the proposed development
will be used for supportive housing, and more than likely will be used for multi-
unit housing, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the land will be used for its
permitted use and so the development should be refused.
11. Supportive housing is defined in the ‘Definitions’ part of the Territory Plan as
follows:
Supportive housing means the use of land for residential accommodation for persons in need of support, which is managed by a Territory approved organisation that provides a range of support services such as counselling, domestic assistance and personal care for residents as required. Although such services must be able to be delivered on site, management and preparation can be carried out on site or elsewhere. Housing may be provided in the form of self-contained dwellings. The term does not include a retirement village or student accommodation.
12. We were not persuaded by the applicants’ arguments, nor were these
proceedings the time or place to comment upon the different circumstances in
which persons would be in need of support and so would be eligible to live in
supportive housing or the kinds of services contemplated under the definition.
13. We accepted the general proposition that a person should not be permitted to
construct a building where it is plainly intended for a prohibited purpose, for
example as a place of worship or for commercial or industrial use, simply by
7
stating that it will be used for a permissible use. Support for that proposition is
found in Lourandos and Anor & ACT Planning & Land Authority and Ors
(Lourandos).1 In that case, the Tribunal considered an application to vary the
purpose clause in a Crown lease to permit multi-unit housing, even though the
lease and development conditions applicable to the subject land did not permit
multi-unit housing. In refusing the application to vary the lease, the Tribunal
had regard to the obvious later intentions. The Tribunal said:
In our opinion, it matters not that there is, at present, no proposal for the design and siting of any building. The intent of the applicants is clearly to develop multi dwelling housing on the consolidated block if the DA was to be approved, and that would be contrary to the intent of the L&Ds. We rely on the views of Higgins J. in Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd & Ors v Minister for Environment Land and Planning (1994) 122 FLR 269 at 279 where, in reference to approval of a lease variation, he said
…it is, I think, permissible to have regard to the consequences which that approval authorises. That must include the prospect that the redevelopment thereby permitted will be carried out.
14. We mention these statements to acknowledge the principle upon which the
applicants rely, but there is nothing about the proposed development that
persuaded us that the Territory intends to use it contrary to its permitted use.
The fact that an impermissible use is possible, in a practical sense, is not
sufficient. Further, many aspects of the proposed development, for example its
compliance with the Access and Mobility General Code and in particular its
compliance with the requirements of Australian Standard 42994 for adaptable
housing Class C, evidenced by the report from Eric Martin and Associates,2
support an expectation that the townhouses will be used for their intended
purpose.
15. If someone wishes in due course to contend that the townhouses or any of them
are not being used for supportive housing, as required under section 247 of the
P and D Act, they may complain to the Authority under section 340 of the P and
D Act that the Territory is conducting a controlled activity which includes,
under Schedule 2, item 1, failing to comply with the provision of a lease.
1 Lourandos and Anor & ACT Planning & Land Authority and Ors [2011] ACAT 25
2 T documents, pages 1258-1262
8
16. In short, we were not persuaded that the applicants’ concerns were grounds to
refuse the development. Their concerns are matters for enforcement, not a basis
for why the development should not proceed.
17. Last, on this subject, we were not persuaded (as the applicants submitted) that
the decision under review needs to be amended to refer to supportive housing as
the only permissible use for the development. That limitation already exists
under the Crown lease and, by reference, the zoning of the subject block.
A bushfire risk
18. The applicants placed great reliance on their submission that the subject block is
prone to bushfires, and that it is not appropriate to build residential
accommodation to be used for supportive housing, meaning to be occupied by
persons in need of support, in a place which would place the occupants at risk of
injury or death from fire. They drew upon the bushfires that burned into many
suburbs of Canberra, including Chapman, 15 years ago.
19. They relied upon the ACT Strategic Bushfire Management Plan v 3 which
provides, at page 56:
Developments that will concentrate members of the community at high risk from bushfire in declared BPAs [meaning Bushfire Prone Areas] are not permissible
20. They relied upon a Bushfire Risk Assessment Report prepared in 2014 by the
Land Development Agency (the LDA) in respect of a proposed residential aged
care facility on Block 1, Section 45 – meaning land that now includes the
subject block - that did not proceed. The Report stated at “Section 7”:
This report has examined the topography, vegetation, fire history and the fire paths which are likely to present a threat to the proposed Residential Aged Care facility.
The site is located on the western edge of the suburb of Chapman and was overrun by the 2003 Canberra Bushfires, causing substantial damage to surrounding assets.
This exposure to a Catastrophic fire event remains, irrespective of the provision of fire protection measures as the landuse is for frail aged persons who are not likely to be capable of either self-evacuation or attending to fires which occur on the site.
9
The site is not an optimum location for this type of development, and will only be fully acceptable following development of the urban zoned land located to the north and northwest of Kathner Street.
21. They contended that the Planning for Bushfire Risk Mitigation General Code
(the Bushfire Code) is applicable and that, pursuant to that Code, a Bushfire
Risk Assessment must be done (and has not been done) in accordance with
paragraph 4.1.1 of the Code in relation to fuel loads and water supply.
22. We were not persuaded by the applicants’ arguments.
23. The subject block is not in a designated bushfire prone area with the
consequence that the Bushfire Code is not applicable. The applicants contended
however that the boundaries of the designated bushfire prone area will be
reviewed and refined from time to time to reflect changes in land use and
tenure, and that if the proposed dwellings are built on the subject block “the
boundary will be adjusted accordingly - thereby bringing the development back
within the [bushfire prone area].” We can see no basis for why that assumption
should be drawn. In any event, in our view, the Tribunal (and the Authority)
should proceed according to the law as it is, not what someone might think it
might later become.
24. Also, even if not required, a bushfire risk assessment was conducted because a
northern portion of what was then Block 1 (but not within what is now the
subject block) is in a designated bushfire prone area. The report found that the
proposed development will comply or reasonably comply with all the identified
bushfire safety requirements.3
25. The Tribunal also received evidence from Mr Samoty, a civil engineer with
Cardno Pty Ltd, who explained that the water main pressure to the subject
block, in the event of a need to draw water elsewhere for firefighting, will be
“39 m head in peak demand, which is far in excess of the 10 m head minimum
required.”
26. The applicant’s submissions regarding opposition in 2014 to a residential aged
care facility (RACF) were unconvincing. The definition of supportive housing
3 T documents, page 1083
10
excludes a retirement village, and involves housing for a much broader sector of
the community than the elderly and frail. Also, the LDA’s observations were
made in 2014 at a time when the whole of Block 1 including the subject block
was within a designated bushfire prone area.
27. We also reject the proposition that the Tribunal, or the Authority, should
‘second-guess’ the Emergency Services Agency’s reasoning for changing the
boundary of the designated bushfire prone area or entertain debate that areas
outside the designated bushfire prone area should still be treated as prone to
bushfire as if they were within a designated bushfire prone area.
Crime prevention
28. The applicants contended that the proposed development does not comply with
criteria 5 and 6 of the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design General
Code (the Crime Prevention Code). Criterion 5 requires planting in public
spaces not to obscure views along paths and streets or to entrances and not to
create secluded hiding areas. Criterion 6 concerns selection of plant materials in
open space and community (shared) areas. It requires selection of plant material
which is sturdy and, in areas of high crime, makes it difficult to snap main
growing stems and increases its chance of survival.
29. We were not persuaded by the applicants’ submissions. We accept the evidence
of Mr Davies, a Development Assessment Officer with the Authority, that the
proposed plantings meet criterion 5. 4 We share Mr Davies doubts that criterion
6 is applicable, noting the absence of evidence that this area of Chapman is an
area of high crime, but are nevertheless satisfied that criterion 6 would still be
met, noting that the proposed plantings have a minimum stock size of 2.5 m.
Parking
30. The applicants made a general submission that the subject block was not
suitable for supportive housing because of inadequate parking. They expressed
concerns that service providers or visitors would have insufficient parking on-
site and would need to park on Darwinia Terrace. They contended that this was
not appropriate for supportive housing, especially for persons with mobility
4 T documents, page 1370
11
concerns. They referred to the Access and Mobility General Code, rule 12 of
which requires a “minimum of one accessible car parking space for each
adaptable dwelling designed in accordance with AS 2890.6”. They also referred
to the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code, clause 3.6.4 of which sets
out locational requirements for long stay, short stay and operational parking
(meaning parking for vehicles used directly as part of the operation within the
development). In particular, the Code requires “operational parking” on-site.
31. We were not persuaded that these provisions of these codes are not met.
32. As mentioned, Mr Martin provided an access report explaining why the Access
and Mobility Code is met.
33. The need for on-site operational parking is also met, having regard to the
number of car spaces available and that service providers are, in all likelihood,
likely to come and go at different times of a day or on different days of a week
according to need.
34. The applicants also made a general submission that 20 townhouses used for
supportive housing was likely to cause parking needs beyond what will be
available on-site, and that persons will therefore be required to park on
Darwinia Terrace. This, they said, was unacceptable for supportive housing.
The applicants contended that the “suitability of the land” by reference to this
matter was an issue which the Authority was required to consider under section
120(b) of the P and D Act, and which the Tribunal should consider on review.
35. Having regard to earlier decisions of the Tribunal that its jurisdiction, on
review, is confined to considering whether applicable rules and criteria have
been met,5 we were not persuaded that we had jurisdiction to consider this issue
on a general ‘suitability’ basis.
36. However, even if we did have jurisdiction to consider the issue, we were not
persuaded that the land is not suitable for supportive housing. The Territory
remains the Crown lessee of the subject block and will own all the proposed
5 Gingell & Anor v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2018] ACAT 62 at [36]-[42]
12
townhouses and associated works on it. Residents will come and go, as
occupants of a townhouse, according to whether they need, or no longer need,
supportive housing.
37. We were also not persuaded that residents will have an entitlement to a car
space in the sense that occupation of a townhouse would bring with it an
entitlement to a car space. Rather, we expect that car spaces will be used and
allocated according to need. Some residents might not have a car or need a car,
but require a car space for service providers who are visiting them to attend to
their needs. Service providers might be visiting for short periods of time and/or
not every day. With basic co-ordination and communication, we expect that
arrangements could be made for service providers to share car spaces by using
them at different times. We make the same observations about visitors. It is all a
matter of appropriate management of car spaces on-site.
38. Also, we can see no reason why it would be inappropriate for persons visiting
the site without any particular operational need for on-site parking to park on
Darwinia Terrace. It is a wide street, constructed and designed to accommodate
kerbside parking.
Entity referral
39. The applicants contended that the Authority’s referral of the proposed
development to the applicable statutory entities, particularly the ACT
Emergency Services Agency (the ESA), was deficient because it was not drawn
to their attention in the referral notices that the proposed development was to be
used for supportive housing. It was submitted, therefore, that their responses
could not and should not be accepted as reliable without this additional
important information and that approval “cannot be given” until the giving of
“proper notice” has been done.
40. We were not persuaded by this argument. The Authority forwarded the
development application to all of the relevant entities, including the ESA. The
referral notices were, in substance, no more than a covering document to
explain the purpose of referring the development application. On the third page
13
of the application,6 under the heading “Proposed use of the Land”, the applicant
wrote “Supportive housing”. It is reasonable to presume that the ESA and all
other entities to which the application was referred would have read the
application and therefore known the proposed use of the land and proposed
buildings on the subject block when giving their responses.
41. Also, from at least 7 June 2016, the Public Housing Renewal Taskforce were
corresponding with the ESA about the suitability of the subject block (and other
possible sites) in the context of it being used for supportive housing.7
Conclusion
42. For these reasons, the decision under review was confirmed.
………………………………..Presidential Member G McCarthyFor and on behalf of the Tribunal
6 T documents, page 9277 Witness statement of Andrew Pyke, attachment 20A, page 10
14
HEARING DETAILS
FILE NUMBER: AT 20, 21, 49 and 50/2018
PARTIES, APPLICANTS: Warwick Costin and Andrew Pyke
PARTIES, RESPONDENT: ACT Planning and Land Authority
PARTY JOINEDAustralian Capital Territory Represented by The Public Housing Renewal Taskforce
COUNSEL APPEARING, APPLICANTS Mr R Arthur
COUNSEL APPEARING, RESPONDENT Mr P Walker
COUNSEL APPEARING, PARTY JOINED Mr R Clynes
SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT Elringtons
SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT ACT Government Solicitor
SOLICITORS FOR PARTY JOINED King & Wood Mallesons
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS:Presidential Member G McCarthy
Senior Member R Pegrum
DATES OF HEARING: 13, 14 and 15 August 2018
15