Brighton Council v Compost Tasmania Pty Ltd - [2000] TASSC 49

[2000] TASSC 49

CITATION: Brighton Council v Compost Tasmania Pty Ltd

Cooper & Ors v Compost Tasmania Pty Ltd [2000] TASSC 49

PARTIES: BRIGHTON COUNCIL
v

COMPOST TASMANIA PTY LTD
COOPER, Colin
COOPER, Robyn
TRUSSLER, Harry
v
COMPOST TASMANIA PTY LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 4/2000

LCA 6/2000

DELIVERED ON:  23 May 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  13 April 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J

CATCHWORDS:

Local Government - Town planning - General matters - Planning Schemes and Instruments and like matters - Tasmania - Brighton Municipality Planning Scheme - Meaning of the word "industry".

Jumbunna Coal Mine (NL) v Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 CLR 309, referred to.
Aust Dig Local Government [161]

Administrative Law - Judicial review at common law - Procedural fairness - Existence of obligation - Under legislation - Particular cases - Statutory obligation to permit parties to inspect documents to which Tribunal proposes to have regard in making decision.

Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act1993 (Tas), s19.
R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore [1965] 1 QB 456; Keller v Drainage Tribunal [1980] VR 449, referred to.
Aust Dig Administrative Law [53]

Statutes - Acts of Parliament - Interpretation - Permissive, directory and mandatory provisions - General principles - Scope and object of the enactment.

Hatton v Beaumont (1978 ) 20 ALR 314; Project Blue Sky v ABA (1998) 194 CLR 355, applied.
Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act1993 (Tas), s19.
Aust Dig Statutes [44]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant Brighton Council:  M E O'Farrell
             Appellants Cooper, Cooper & Trussler:    G B G Bradfield
             Respondent:  P G J Zeeman
Solicitors:
             Appellant Brighton Council:  Dobson Mitchell & Allport
             Appellants Cooper, Cooper & Trussler:    Bradfields
             Respondent:  Murdoch Clarke

Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 49
Number of Paragraphs: 51

Serial No 49/2000
File Nos LCA 4/2000
LCA 6/2000

BRIGHTON COUNCIL v COMPOST TASMANIA PTY LTD
COLIN COOPER, ROBYN COOPER, HARRY TRUSSLER v
COMPOST TASMANIA PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

23 May 2000

Introduction

The respondent made a Development Application to the Brighton Municipal Council for a permit for the:

"… development of a pilot project for the composting of wastes using a proven aerobic windrow composting system to produce high quality agricultural compost with a substantial humus content."

By resolution passed on 13 September 1999, the Council refused the application. The respondent appealed to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal ("the Tribunal") pursuant to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 ("the Act"), s61(4). On 22 December 1999, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the application for a permit, subject to conditions set out in the Tribunal's reasons for decision.

The appellant, Brighton Council, and three persons who had made representations pursuant to the Act, s57(5), appealed to this Court, pursuant to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993, s25. There are two notices of appeal. The grounds of each…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brighton Council v Compost Tasmania Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] TASSC 49
Decision Date: 23 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Brighton Council v Compost Tasmania Pty Ltd, the appellants, including Brighton Council and three residents, appealed the decision of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal, which had allowed a development application for a composting project. The appellants argued that the proposed use was misclassified as "Rural Industry" and should have been classified as "General Industry", making it a prohibited use in the General Agricultural zone. The court agreed with the appellants' argument, finding that the proposed use did not meet the definition of "Rural Industry" and, in fact, fell within the definition of "General Industry". Additionally, the court found that the Tribunal failed to observe the rules of natural justice by not disclosing a report prepared by a consultant planner to the appellant Council. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was invalid due to the non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Tribunal was quashed.

Orders