Phelps v Development Consent Authority

[2009] NTSC 54

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Appeal from Lands Planning and Mining Tribunal
4. › Appeal on questions of law only
5. › Whether error of law affected Tribunal's decision
6. › Planning Act (NT), s 133
1. Planning and Environment Law
2. › Subdivision of land
3. › Minimum lot size
4. › Special circumstances justifying departure from planning standards
5. › Whether proposed restrictive covenants capable of amounting to special circumstances
6. › Northern Territory Planning Scheme, cl 2.5.3
1. Planning and Environment Law
2. › Subdivision of land
3. › Conditions of consent
4. › Restrictive covenants
5. › Whether restrictive covenants enforceable as covenants in gross
6. › Law of Property Act (NT), s 168
1. Administrative Law
2. › Error of law
3. › Taking into account irrelevant considerations
4. › Whether error affected decision
5. › Permeation of error through reasoning process

Quick Take

Proposed restrictive covenants over subdivided land are capable of amounting to 'special circumstances' justifying departure from minimum lot size standards under clause 2.5.3 of the NT Planning Scheme. Covenants in gross are enforceable under s 168 of the Law of Property Act (NT) in favour of the Territory, a local government body, a statutory corporation, or a prescribed person. Where an error of law permeates a tribunal's reasoning process, including its collective assessment of multiple factors, the error may have affected the decision even if the tribunal considered alternative hypotheses on individual factors.