Cameron v Resource Planning and Development Commission - [2006] TASSC 66

[2006] TASSC 66

CITATION: Cameron v Resource Planning and Development Commission [2006] TASSC 66

PARTIES:  CAMERON, Alan Banks
  CAMERON, Wendy Elizabeth
  v

RESOURCE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  M299/2005
DELIVERED ON:  27 September 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  11, 12 April 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Administrative Law – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Error of law – Construction and interpretation of State Coastal Policy 1996 – Meaning of coastal dependence.

Aust Dig Administrative Law [1030]

Administrative Law – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Error of law – Construction and interpretation of State Coastal Policy 1996 – Meaning of tourism development.

Aust Dig Administrative Law [1030]

Administrative Law – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Error of law – Construction and interpretation of State Coastal Policy 1996 – Interrelationship of urban development and tourism provisions.

Aust Dig Administrative Law [1030]

Administrative Law – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Procedural fairness – Existence of obligation – Application of principles of natural justice – Proceedings before Resource Planning and Development Commission.

Aust Dig Administrative Law [1046]

Judicial Review Act2000 (Tas), s17.
Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas), ss32, 33, 34, Sch1, Pt1.
Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994, Pt6, cls 6.4.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, Pt8, cls 8.3, 8.9, Pt9, Sch6, cls 6.1, 6.4
State Coastal Policy 1996, cls 2.1.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.4, 2.4.2.

Richard G Bejah Insurance and Financial Services Pty Ltd v D Manning (2002) 123 LGERA 349; W J Manning and The Friends of Four Mile Creek Bushcare Group Inc and Break O'Day Council and Morris Nunn & Associates v Bejah [2006] TASRMPAT 26; BHP Petroleum Pty Ltd v Balfour (1987) 180 CLR 474; Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323, applied.

Appellant V324 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 259; Yu Feng Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council [2000] 1 Qd R 306, referred to.

Environment and Planning – Environmental planning – Development control – Control of particular matters – Foreshore and coastal development – Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994 Schedule 6 – Ribbon development.

Aust Dig Environment and Planning [150]
Kingborough Council Planning Scheme 2000.
David v Development Consent Authority NTLMT 54, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicants:  A C R Spence
             Respondent:  P Turner
Solicitors:
             Applicants:  Page Seager
             Respondent:  P Turner

Judgment Number: [2006] TASSC 66
Number of paragraphs: 71

Serial No 66/2006
File No M299/2005

ALAN BANKS CAMERON and WENDY ELIZABETH CAMERON v
THE RESOURCE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

27 September 2006

General Background

The applicants hold an area of 34 hectares about six kilometres north of Bicheno within the Glamorgan Spring Bay municipality. The land is bounded by about 900 metres of ocean frontage on one side, a one kilometre frontage on the Tasman Highway on the other,…

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.

Continue reading Cameron v Resource Planning and Development Commission

Details

AGLC: Cameron v Resource Planning and Development Commission [2006] TASSC 66
Case: [2006] TASSC 66
Decision Date: 27 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cameron v Resource Planning and Development Commission, the applicant, Mr Cameron, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Commission. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the State Coastal Policy 1996 in the context of a development application for a commercial property. Mr Cameron argued that the Commission erred in law by incorrectly interpreting the term "coastal dependence" as it applied to his property. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was the proper interpretation of the term "coastal dependence" within the State Coastal Policy 1996. The court had to determine whether the Commission's decision to approve the development was based on a correct understanding of the statutory language and whether it adhered to the principles of statutory interpretation. The applicant contended that the Commission misinterpreted the policy, which resulted in an unlawful decision.

The court considered the statutory language, relevant case law, and the context in which the term "coastal dependence" was used. It was held that the Commission's interpretation was not erroneous. The court found that the Commission correctly applied the policy and that the term "coastal dependence" was properly understood in the context of the development application. As such, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the Commission's two respondents.

Orders