Denison Developments Pty Ltd v Central Highlands Regional Council; Ludlow Holdings Pty Ltd v Central Highlands Regional Council

[2009] QPEC 131

[2009] QPEC 131

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2845 of 2009

DENISON DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 114485415

Appellant

and

CENTRAL HIGHLANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL

and

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS

P & E Appeal No 2825 of 2009

LUDLOW HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 137491388

and

CENTRAL HIGHLANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL

and

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS

Respondent

Co-Respondent

Appellant

Respondent

Co-Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/11/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Integrated Planning Act 1997 s4.1.5A, s4.1.45, s4.1.55

Through oversight election to co-respond in applicant appeal filed late - no party opposed the participation in the appeal of the Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads - time for filing election extended

HIS HONOUR:  Order as per initialled draft.

The order is unusual, including arrangements to regularise the co-respondent's participation in the appeal. Through an administrative error or oversight, the Notice of Election to Co-Respond, which by Section 4.1.45 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 should have been filed by the 21st of October 2009, was not in fact filed until the 5th of the following month.

There is no objection raised by the appellant developer or by the Council to the Department being permitted to take part in the appeal. Its participation may, indeed, be helpful in the resolution of issues. Although Mr Misso who applied on its behalf for relief may have regarded that as being done under Section 4.1.5A which would no doubt be open, a more suitable course may be to rely on Section 4.1.55.

...

HIS HONOUR:  The considerations in appeal 2825 of 2009 are the same.  The explanation for there being two "applicant" appeals is that there has been a change in ownership of the land.  For the moment, with the companies having the same representation, there need be no fear of inconsistent stances being taken by two "applicants".

The considerations respecting the relief which the Department of Main Roads needs are the same in the Ludlow Holdings appeal 2825 of 2009 except that the extent of non-compliance is exacerbated by the Ludlow Holdings' appeal having been commenced a day sooner, and the last date for the election to co‑respond accordingly being a day sooner as well.

Again, order as per initialled draft.

‑‑‑‑‑