CDU expert Amanda Lilleyman in last ditch bid to stop controversial DHA Lee Point housing project
A CDU professor is suing the Development Consent Authority, arguing it wrongly rejecting a complaint made of the Lee Point project.@jas_walls
2 min read
June 26, 2024 – 5:30PM
Amanda Lilleyman has taken action in NTCAT in an 11th hour bid to stop DHA’s housing project at Lee Point. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin
Northern Territory
Don’t miss out on the headlines from Northern Territory. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Unfollow
A Darwin shorebird expert has launched a last ditch bid to put the brakes on a controversial housing development at Lee Point via the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Charles Darwin University adjunct professor Amanda Lilleyman is suing the Development Consent Authority, arguing it erred in finding developer Defence Housing Australia had not breached its permit conditions.
In her application, Dr Lilleyman argues condition two of DHA’s permit required it to develop and implement a shorebird monitoring program she authored before starting any works.
“As such, the monitoring program cannot have been implemented before the works started.
“On this basis, clearly the DHA has acted inconsistently with the conditions of development permit 18/0409 and that the decision was made in error.”
Dr Lilleyman says DHA conducted fence construction, excavator use and site preparation before implementing a shorebird monitoring program. Picture: NTCAT
“Implementation of the monitoring program would include: doing a survey at the survey site, using binoculars and a spotting scope, identifying and counting birds, recording the number of birds into an application or database per table one and table two of the monitoring program.”
In its response filed with the tribunal, the DCA argues “the proceeding should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction”.
Solicitor for the NT lawyer Margo Hi said the DCA had refused to investigate Dr Lilleyman’s complaint as “no ground existed” for it.
Ms Hi argues the decision to knock back the complaint was “not a reviewable decision” under the Planning Act.
“Accordingly, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision,” she wrote.
Images Dr Lilleyman claims show DHA commencing work in breach of its development permit. Picture: NTCAT
“As such, the monitoring program cannot have been implemented before the works started.
“On this basis, clearly the DHA has acted inconsistently with the conditions of development permit 18/0409 and that the decision was made in error.”
Dr Lilleyman is asking the tribunal to overturn the DCA’s ruling in April this year that there was no breach of condition two by DHA due to the DCA’s “failure to investigate the complaint with correct dates and permits”.
“The applicant, as the shorebird expert whose name appears on the monitoring program, is not aware of any engagement or implementation of the conditions in the monitoring program,” she wrote.
“Implementation of the monitoring program at any time where the DHA is alleged to have commenced work or cleared the site is impossible.
Dr Lilleyman says DHA conducted fence construction, excavator use and site preparation before implementing a shorebird monitoring program. Picture: NTCAT
“Implementation of the monitoring program would include: doing a survey at the survey site, using binoculars and a spotting scope, identifying and counting birds, recording the number of birds into an application or database per table one and table two of the monitoring program.”