Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3516 ..
f) the claim by the appellants that the decision was not in accordance with the lease was, in the Board's view, not substantiated, given evidence that the accommodation is to be used only for aged persons, the maximum number of 85 self-care units would not be exceeded, and an aged persons home would be provided along with ancillary facilities and amenities,
g) the appellants' claim that the general principles and policies, performance controls and performance measures of the Territory Plan would not be met is not, the Board found, substantiated, because in providing discretionary powers to a decision maker, the general policies of the Plan and in particular the design and siting code allow for acceptable departures. The claim that the minimum setbacks (performance measures) of the proposal were not met was not accompanied by any strong evidence to show that the amenity of nearby residents would be adversely affected. Further, since the subject land is not exclusively residential owing to its boundary with a commercial area, the setbacks should be considered in this light. Accordingly the Board found that Performance Criterion P2.1 of the Territory Plan was met. In addition the Board found that despite claims to the contrary, the private open space surrounding the proposed buildings and the carparking spaces were acceptable, given the density of the complex and prior approvals for the development,
h) the claim by the appellants that the decision maker did not have jurisdiction was not proven. The Board accepted, in the absence of convincing argument to the contrary, that the relevant provisions of the Buildings (Design and Siting Act) and the applied Part VI of the Land Act had been properly followed by the decision maker, who had been lawfully delegated the appropriate powers to do so by the ACT Planning Authority,
i) the Board found that procedures had been properly observed by the decision maker to the extent that they did not amount to any breaches of the provisions of the relevant legislation,
j) the claim by the appellants that the decision is inconsistent with the provisions of the National Capital Plan was not substantiated. The subject residential land is contained in the Territory Plan, and by operation of the Land Act, is the responsibility of the ACT Government. There is no "national land" contained within the lease which would invoke any powers of the Commonwealth under the National Capital Plan,
k) the Board found that the merits of the case were a matter for the Board to consider as part of the review process and that the decision maker had, in the Board's opinion, performed all of the duties given to him within the powers delegated to him,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .