Aldi Stores v. Redland City Council

[2008] QPEC 57

[2008] QPEC 57

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Court

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 1429 of 2008

ALDI STORES (A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)

Appellant

and

REDLAND CITY COUNCIL

and

DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS

and

DEBRA NEARY

and

NIGEL CUSHING

Respondent

Second Respondent

First Co-Respondent

Second Co-Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 08/08/2008

ORDER

CATCHWORDS:  Whether developer appeal against refusal of a development application for a supermarket should be listed for the February 2009 or March 2009 pool, where it would be ready for the former - Council contended for latter, being committed to a 4 week appeal in February - self-represented.  A respondent also committed in February to sit examinations.

HIS HONOUR:  The question for the Court in this Directions Hearing is whether the appeal should be allocated to the February pool next year or the March pool.

There's a Development Application proposing a supermarket.  Ordinarily the commercial interests of the applicant in getting to the stage where it can see its way clear to establishing its proposal would indicate the earlier date.  There is no particular evidence before the Court indicating that the appellant is anxious to begin trading at the earliest possible time.

There is evidence before the Court from the respondent Council indicating that its resources will be strained if it's compelled to run this seven day appeal at same time as a four week appeal in a quarry case is running.  That's already been allocated time in the February pool.

Mr Job for the appellant, contending for February, notes that the Council has instructed different national firms in the two appeals.  Mr Ure has confirmed that he understands himself to be counsel of choice in both of them.  The riposte of Mr Job was that he's presently in both matters as well, so that hearings in separate sittings might suit him personally.
Notwithstanding Mr Job's submission that the respondent is a city and ought to have the resources to effectively run two large appeals at once, we're not dealing with Brisbane or even the Gold Coast.  I have some sympathy for Council's position.  Other developers would no doubt hope that they didn't face delay in processing of their applications attributable to Council officers being heavily committed to two appeals running at the same time. 

Another convenience aspect concerns the first co-respondent, Ms Neary, who's representing herself and her partner.  She, when invited by me, indicated a preference for March on the basis that in February she will be sitting important examinations.

In the circumstances, notwithstanding that the otherwise agreed timetable allows ample time for preparation for a February hearing, I've determined to allocate this matter to the March pool.  That is on the express basis that there will be particular liberty to apply to the appellant for earlier hearing dates if a clash with the hearing of BD3438 of 2007 can be avoided.

I make an order in terms of the initialled draft, which corresponds with the one Mr Job supplied, except that in paragraphs 18 and 19 the reference is now to the March 2009 sittings.  Paragraph 20 provides liberty to apply generally and, in particular, liberty to the appellant to apply for searlier hearing dates if a clash with the hearing of BD3438 of 2007 can be avoided.

-----