Dawson v Brisbane City Council

[2009] QPEC 128

[2009] QPEC 128

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2248 of 2009

IAN DAWSON  Appellant

and

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL                 Respondent

and

CHRISTIAN CITY CHURCH WESTSIDE        Co-Respondent

and

GRANT WINDLE  Co-Respondent

..BRISBANE

..DATE 13/11/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Development application to regularise use (next to a church) of adult venue, which Council asserted was an unlawful use - in appeal against Council refusal of application, appellant and Council agreed on directions - Co-Respondent Church wanted an earlier hearing date - invited by Court to use liberty to apply to seek that on proper material - use still operating

HIS HONOUR:  I'll make an order in terms of that initialled draft.  That's done without being satisfactory to the co‑respondent, who was an adverse submitter and to date has advanced his view successfully as regards persuading the Council.  The Council maintains its opposition to the proposed development.

Mr Windle's desire to have the matter on sooner rather than later is not simply out of concern to get it over, but because of the unhappiness which any reasonable person wouldn't be surprised to hear about flowing from the juxtaposition of a nightclub or adult entertainment centre of some kind near to a church where children are likely to be about.  The facility has been operating for some time, which means that the concerns are real.

The appellant made a development application with a view to regularising his use, which the Council says is unlawful.  For reasons that haven't been gone into, it seems that he's being allowed to continue to operate while the proceeding remains on foot.  It shouldn't be thought that the Court endorses that.  Unfortunately, through a misunderstanding, Mr Windle wasn't here when the matter was first called on, although the Court's grateful to him for hurrying in when Ms Johnston contacted him by telephone. 

I think it's incumbent on him, if he wants the timetable acceptable to the other parties revised to lead to a hearing before the April sittings next year, to attempt to negotiate that with the other parties, and if he can't do that successfully from his point of view, to approach the Court with a detailed alternative timetable.  I've explained to Mr Windle that the liberty to apply reserved in the order entitles him to approach the Court on two business days' notice to the other parties to attempt to get orders that might lead to an earlier hearing made by the Court.

For the moment order as per initialled draft.

-----