A public housing tenant has warded off a legal challenge against a shipping container she placed in her Tuggeranong backyard.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal found the container did not breach the tenancy agreement with the Commissioner for Social Housing, dismissing an application to force its removal.
The commissioner claimed the container damaged the land and stormwater easement on which it was standing and was an alteration or addition made without permission of the lessor, both of which constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement.
But tribunal senior member Heidi Robinson found consent for the container was "unreasonably withheld" and found no evidence to suggest it would cause physical damage on other parts of the property.
The decision was published as shipping containers spread across Canberra's suburbs, with greater demand for the structures in residential areas in recent years.
The tribunal heard the the 12-metre long container was delivered to the property in January last year and was intended as a bedroom for the tenant's eldest son, creating more space for the six residents of the "cramped" three bedroom Banks house.
The commissioner declined to grant permission to have the container remain on the property in October, noting the container was on a stormwater easement.
The tenant responded in November that she would move the container off the easement to another part of the yard if she was allowed to keep it, but the commissioner issued a notice the next month advising her to remove it altogether.
When she refused, the commissioner applied to ACAT requesting permission to have the container removed from the property.
The tribunal heard the commissioner refused permission for the container because it was of an inappropriate size for a suburban setting and would create a precedent for other public housing tenants.
Ms Robinson said there was nothing submitted to suggest the container was damaging a garden, killing off grass or causing any damage to "value or amenity" of the property.
She also found the refusal to grant permission on the grounds of size appeared to come down to "aesthetic reasons", or the concerns of neighbours.
"The Tribunal is aware that the location of containers in residential locations is a controversial topic," Ms Robinson said in her decision.
"However, the commissioner did not point to any law or regulation that prohibits the placement of shipping containers in residential areas in the ACT."
The tribunal also noted the tenant provided letters from her neighbours raising no objection to the container staying on the property, and its lack of visibility from the road.
Ms Robinson said she wasn't convinced the case would create a precedent allowing all public housing tenants to keep shipping containers on their properties.
"The applicant's block is both large and distinctively set back from the road," she said.
"The only 'precedent' that would be created would, perhaps, be an expectation that other tenants of comparatively large and private blocks would be entitled to have a similar application considered equally."
