Ms Taylor adopted the submissions put on behalf of the Planning Authority and made the further submission that because of the extensive community consultation that occurred in relation to the proposed development prior to July 2015, all concerned persons were well aware of the proposed development regardless of the statutory public notification. Ms Taylor acknowledged however that during this community consultation Goodwin did not disclose that the proposed development included 154 ILUs rather than 124, nor state how many ILUs were proposed. Ms Taylor also disputed that the lack of detail in the Planning notification that 42 of the 124 beds in the RACF would Authority’s include additional facilities to provide those residents with a greater degree of independent living did not deflect or awareness of the timing, defeat anyone’s location or nature of the proposed development or restrict ability to anyone’s make representations about it, especially where that detail could be seen upon reviewing the full application. In reply, Mr Glass contended it was not to the point that the development application disclosed this detail about the RACF. He said that the public notification was still inaccurate, by referring to beds rather than dwellings, when in truth is what they would be. I inferred the same submission in ‘dwellings’ reply regarding the public notification stating 124 rather than 154 ILU’s. Consideration of the issues The Tribunal is created under statute and its powers arise under statute. This is particularly relevant to the administrative review jurisdiction. Under Tribunal’s the P&D Act, chapter 13 and schedule 1, the Tribunal may review only those decisions that constitute a as defined in section 407 of the reviewable decision, P&D Act, and only on application by an also as defined in eligible entity, section 407 of the Act. Mr Glass did not suggest that the Tribunal is expressly able to review the Planning public notification of the proposed development. He was Authority’s right not to do so: schedule 1 to the P&D Act, which lists the reviewable decisions, does not include a public notification were to be so ‘decision’ (if characterised) under any of sections 153, 154 and 155 in division 7.3.4 of the P&D Act.
Ms Taylor adopted the submissions put on behalf of the Planning Authority and made the further submission that because of the extensive community consultation that occurred in relation to the proposed development prior to July 2015, all concerned persons were well aware of the proposed development regardless of the statutory public notification. Ms Taylor acknowledged however that during this community consultation Goodwin did not disclose that the proposed development included 154 ILUs rather than 124, nor state how many ILUs were proposed. Ms Taylor also disputed that the lack of detail in the Planning Authority’s notification that 42 of the 124 beds in the RACF would include additional facilities to provide those residents with a greater degree of independent living did not deflect or defeat anyone’s awareness of the timing, location or nature of the proposed development or restrict anyone’s ability to make representations about it, especially where that detail could be seen upon reviewing the full application. In reply, Mr Glass contended it was not to the point that the development application disclosed this detail about the RACF. He said that the public notification was still inaccurate, by referring to beds rather than dwellings, when in truth ‘dwellings’ is what they would be. I inferred the same submission in reply regarding the public notification stating 124 rather than 154 ILU’s. Consideration of the issues The Tribunal is created under statute and its powers arise under statute. This is particularly relevant to the Tribunal’s administrative review jurisdiction. Under the P&D Act, chapter 13 and schedule 1, the Tribunal may review only those decisions that constitute a reviewable decision, as defined in section 407 of the P&D Act, and only on application by an eligible entity, also as defined in section 407 of the Act. Mr Glass did not suggest that the Tribunal is expressly able to review the Planning Authority’s public notification of the proposed development. He was right not to do so: schedule 1 to the P&D Act, which lists the reviewable decisions, does not include a ‘decision’ (if public notification were to be so characterised) under any of sections 153, 154 and 155 in division 7.3.4 of the P&D Act.
glass_v_act_planning_and_land_authority_anor_administrative_review_2016_acat_21.docx