A commercial competitor whose interest is limited to the potential economic impact of a rival development does not have standing as a 'person aggrieved' under s 5 of the AD(JR) Act (ACT) to challenge a planning approval, where the interest asserted is not one the Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) was designed to protect. Conditions on a development approval that defer its operation until a referral entity's requirements are met are not 'inconsistent' with that entity's advice for the purposes of s 119(2) of the PDA. A delegate who re-decides a development application after the first decision was set aside by consent is not disqualified by apprehended bias merely because of the prior decision.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.