Skip to content Skip to main navigation

ACTPLA gets smacked down – again

54-11 17 April 2010 11

The ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) has again refused a DA which had been approved by ACTPLA.  In the case of Mainore Pty Ltd v ACTPLA & Canberra Investment Corporation Ltd (Administrative Review) [2010] ACAT 18, ACAT stated it “is a mystery to the Tribunal as to how such a proposal could have been approved” (para 3).

At one point, the ACAT noted that the “witnesses called by the developer, and the expert called by the Planning Authority, succeeded in tying themselves in knots…”

In the end, the proposed development in Kingston Foreshores, put up by the CIC and approved by ACTPLA, was sent back to the drawing board.

Having read many ACAT, and it’s predecessor AAT, cases, I keep failing to understand how ACTPLA keeps making these planning blunders.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
11 Responses to
ACTPLA gets smacked down – again
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
moneypenny2612 5:03 pm 17 Apr 10

In case anyone is wondering the impugned development is Quayside.

If the info on the promotional website is any indication, Quayside looks pretty hideous (and expensive). The tiny studios that were rejected by ACAT would set you back more than $8000 per square metre.

Obviously the stakes are high – more than 50% of apartments already sold off-the-plan – so don’t be surprised if the CIC doesn’t take the ACAT’s decision lying down.

Mr Evil 7:55 pm 17 Apr 10

This would be the same ACTPLA that can somehow accidentally leave 80+ pages out of a document that was sent to developers outlining what was acceptable for a Civic site being sold for a future development?

sepi 11:53 am 18 Apr 10

So was it rejected because the apartments were too small? Or too many of them? Or too ugly???

Gungahlin Al 1:55 pm 18 Apr 10

Is it false advertising to call something “Quayside” when it isn’t? Quayside-but-a-block”?

54-11 10:30 am 19 Apr 10

The Crimes picked up the story this morning (I sometimes wonder if they get their clues from the RA, like some of that which evolved when Mully improved the gene pool). I hadn’t realised that Mainore was owned by the notorious “Jolly” Josip Zivko (of ‘bundah Caravan Park infamy).

I can see Col Alexander of CIC giving Jolly his jollies at some stage in the future – look out for more developers appealing against other developers, just to get even!

I love it when the bastards fight amongst themselves.

p1 12:49 pm 19 Apr 10

“is a mystery to the Tribunal as to how such a proposal could have been approved”

When a development gets stopped after approval like this, does the ACTPLA have to give the bribes back?

(Just kidding, I think they aren’t so much corrupt, as hamstrung by inept political leadership.

chewy14 12:55 pm 19 Apr 10

How stupid are ACTPLA?

How they thought they wouldn’t have trouble approving 6 storey buildings on the shoreline directly in front of 4 storey buildings blocking their view is beyond me.

Clown Killer 2:07 pm 19 Apr 10

How they thought they wouldn’t have trouble approving 6 storey buildings on the shoreline directly in front of 4 storey buildings blocking their view is beyond me.

If that really is a reason to stop a building approval then the laws definately need to be changed to make them fairer. A leaseholder or landholder should have no special right to a view unless they control all of the land between them and what they enjoy looking at – it’s why the land further back from the view is always cheaper … if people have bought the cheap blocks back from the lake then the scenery’s only temporary and it’s only theirs until someone who’s not a tight-arse gets in a builds their own version of paradise to enjoy the view.

chewy14 2:48 pm 19 Apr 10

Clown Killer,

the problem is the wording in the Territory plan and the way it is interpreted.
I think this land is zoned CZ5.

The rule is that buildings in Kingston are to be a maximum of four storeys high. Some buildings are allowed to exceed four storeys if they meet certain criteria.
The problem is that the way the criteria are worded can be very subjective.

Clown Killer 3:50 pm 19 Apr 10

Well that makes more sence – if you’re only allowed four storeys then four storeys it is – unless of course you can have more …

It would seem then to be more a matter of planning. It would be completely ludicrous if people were able to sucessfully object to a development going up just because it impinged on their view.

KambahUtd 5:50 pm 12 Jul 10

I actually read the decision; CIC’s affrontery was astounding.

CIC literally broke evey rule in the planning/building design book. Some of the studios where s-o-o-o small, that banks would not be able to lend against them because of their own criteria( <40m2), had it ben approved.

They even tried cycnical old school tricks such as including lift lobby space in the common area calcs, so to justify the sheer scale of the monster development?? Sounds like they paid overs, and are trying to get to make the numbers work by massing this think up. How dumb do they think Canberrans are ?

The really scary thing is, this was about the sail through, on a wink. 5 years ago CIC just might have pulled this off. DANGEROUS.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site