Case Note ~ Guest house development approval set aside at Pialligo Estate

PIALLIGO RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY (Administrative Review) [2024] ACAT 41

The Pialligo Residents Association (‘the Association’) has successfully had a recent ACT Planning and Land Authority (‘ACTPLA’) development approval at Pialligo Estate set aside.

The development approval gave retrospective approval to change the class of building of the original farmhouse to class 1b to support its conversion of use from residential to  a guest house with its existing internal fit out works.

The approval was granted on the condition that the guest house must be used for ‘farm tourism’ and ancillary to the primary use of agriculture permitted by the NUZ1 zoning and cannot be used as a standalone guest house. The applicant of the development application provided a statement as to how the guest house will be associated with agriculture to satisfy that the use of the guest house was ancillary to the agricultural activities.

The Association claimed that the block had never been used for agricultural purposes and therefore the guesthouse was n for farm tourism and not ancillary to the required primary use. Witnesses for the Association provided photographic evidence and testified that the block in question had never been utilised for any agricultural purpose.

The Tribunal referred to the definition of ‘agriculture’ in the crown lease of the land which included broadacre farming. The Tribunal then turned to the dictionary definition of ‘broadacre farming’ as being “the farming of large tracts of land as a single operation resulting in economics of sale”. The current scale of vegetable growing which predominantly serviced the restaurant, event venues, and cafés operated as part of Pialligo Estate, did not meet this definition.

The Respondent had initially argued that the Tribunal should dismiss the application, as the decision to approve the development application was exempt from third-party review and was therefore outside of the jurisdiction of ACAT . While the Respondent’s position had changed during the course of the hearing, the Tribunal still made the observation that the decision was not exempt from third-party review Under item 10 in schedule 3, part 3.2 of the Planning and Development Act 2007. This meant the Association did have standing to seek review of the approval.

The Tribunal ordered that the approval be set aside.