Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3513 ..

ii) specifically it was considered that firstly:

. the relevant general policy and Code requirements of the Territory Plan were satisfied. The development was consistent with the Crown Lease over the property,

. in particular, in the light of the lease provisions applying to the property (including the original lease and development conditions prepared for the site) and previous approvals granted, the development would secure the best design in all aspects of residential development in the area and enhance the amenity of adjoining blocks, and,

iii) secondly, the conditions imposed would address all reasonable concerns of the objectors, in particular:

. the retention of an internal loop road would ensure that sufficient on site manoeuvrability existed for resident and service vehicles. (In addition the possible nuisance and hazards from service vehicles reversing would now be avoided);

. the re-orientation of the serviced apartment's roof ridge lines, and the reduction of the height of the roof for the lift over-run would minimise any loss of view from existing units to the south,

. the requirement for further detailed landscaping plans for works on the site, the Pocket park, and the Anticline would ensure that the final form of landscaping on these sites would be carefully controlled and accord with the important planning requirements of these sites (including the Deakin Anticline conservation plan), and,

. the condition that detailed plans or drawings showing the Macgregor Street elevation of the 4-storey self-care units in detail, be prepared and approved before commencing work, would ensure that an appropriate level of the detail presentation of this development would be controlled, and an acceptable final development achieved.

b) the claims by the applicants for review, in summary, were-

i) the decision involved errors of law and was contrary to law and a nullity in that it:

. purported to give approval in terms inconsistent with the lease of the land,

. purported to approve design and siting of buildings contrary to the Territory Plan in relation to general principles and policies. Performance Controls or Performance Measures set out in Appendix III.2,

. the decision-maker did not have jurisdiction to make the decision,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .