Andrew v Pine Rivers Shire Council

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Andrew v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Anor [2004] QPEC 007

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER ANDREW  (Appellant)

AND

PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL              (Respondent)

AND

DTS GROUP  (Co-respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MD 67 of 2004

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

5 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2004

JUDGE:

Judge J.M. Robertson

ORDER:

I am satisfied that there has been compliance with the provisions of Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – whether public notice given complies with provisions in Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997.

COUNSEL:

Mr L Manning (solicitor) for the appellant

Mr R Forbes for the respondent

Mr C Hughes S.C. for the co-respondent

SOLICITORS:

P & E Law for the appellant

Pine Rivers Shire Council for the respondent

MacDonnells Solicitors for the co-respondent

1. The appellant submitter, Mr Andrew, seeks orders that there has been non compliance with the provisions of Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 relating to the giving of public notice of the development application. The co-respondent DTS Group and the Council argue that there has been compliance or substantial compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

1. The Council has approved a development application by DTS to facilitate development of the land for 107 residential A type lots, park and new road. The land is situated at Mango Hill on the northern outskirts of Brisbane. The land adjoins an existing residential subdivision known as “Mango Hill Estate” located west and northwest of the land.

1. DTS lodged its development application with the Council on 21 May 2003. With the IDAS application forms, it lodged an assessment report of DTS dated May 2003, and proposal plans A3-2935/1 and A1-916/1. It is common ground that these documents were available for public inspection at the Council during the public notification period as required by section 3.2.8 of IPA. As the land was in the future urban zone, the application was impact assessable under the Council’s transitional planning scheme and required public notification under part 4 of Chapter 3 of the Act.

1. DTS undertook the public notification of the application under the Act. As required, it gave notice of the application by newspaper advertisement, by the erection of 3 signs on the land; and by written notices to adjoining owners.

1. In each of these notices, the proposal was described as follows:

“Development Permit for Material Change of Use and Reconfiguration of an Allotment”.

1. The appellant submits that the proposal is not adequately described as required by IPA. The purpose of the public notification requirements under IPA is to give the public the opportunity to (a) make submissions, including objections that must then be taken into account before an application is decided; and (b) secure a right of appeal to this Court about the assessment manager’s decision (pursuant to s3.4.1 of IPA). In his submission, Mr Manning does seek…