Development Watch Inc v Maroochy Shire Council

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Development Watch Inc v. Maroochy Shire Council & Ors [2007] QPEC 023

PARTIES:

Development Watch Inc  Appellant
And
Maroochy Shire Council  Respondent
And  
Cardno (QLD) Pty Ltd  Co-Respondent
And
Coeur De Lion Investments Pty Ltd; and
LLD (Coolum Western) Pty Ltd  
  Co-Respondents by   Election

FILE NO/S:

344/06

DIVISION:

Planning & Environment Court

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning & Environment Court of Queensland, Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2007

JUDGE:

Judge J M Robertson

ORDER:

Order that there has been compliance with the IPA in relation to the giving of public notice of the proposed development.

CATCHWORDS

Development Permit for operational works, submitter appeal, whether Co-Respondent has complied with public notification requirements of the IPA.

Cases:
Curran & Ors v Brisbane City Council (2002) QPELR 58
Rathera Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (2000) 115 LGERA 348
Telstra Corporation Limited v Pine Rivers Shire Council (2000) QPELR 241

Legislation:
Integrated Planning Act 1997

COUNSEL:

Mr Walsgott    (for the Appellant)
Mr A Skoien   (for the Co-Respondent)
Ms M Grey     (for the Respondent Council)

SOLICITORS:

Development Watch Inc        (for the Appellant)
Freehills   (for the Co-Respondent)
Legal Services, Maroochy Shire Council  (for the Respondent Council)

1. On 3 November 2006 the Council granted to the co-respondent Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd a development permit for operational works (construction, excavation and filling – bulk earthworks for Golf Course Extension) and the appellant as submitter has appealed against that decision. Cardno applied for the permit on behalf of the co-respondent by election, who are the owners of the Hyatt Coolum Resort facilities at Yaroomba. The permit relates to operational works for the construction of new golf holes on vacant land adjacent to the existing resort facilities.

1. On 7 February 2007 the co-respondents by election (the owners) applied for directions to progress the appeal and sought a declaration that there had been compliance with the provision of the IPA relating to the giving of public notice of the development application.

1. The application was supported by an affidavit of Glen Wright, a town planner with Ken Hicks and Associates who undertook the public notification of the development application on behalf of the owners. Mr Wright was not required for cross-examination and his evidence is not challenged by any sworn evidence.

1. In its notice of appeal filed 15 December 2006 the appellant set out as its first ground of appeal: “public notification was confusing and incomplete”. Further and better particulars of the grounds of appeal were sought and filed on 6 February 2007. Ground 1 is particularized as follows:

(a) specify the way in which the public notification was allegedly confusing;

Answer (1) (a). The public notification signs were placed adjacent to public notification signs for other development applications.

(b) specify the way in which the public notification was allegedly incomplete;

Answer (1) (b). The public notification did not specify the nature of the proposal.

1. The owners’ application for directions came before me on 16…