Gaven Developments Pty Ltd v Scenic Rim Regional Council

[2010] QPEC 7

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Gaven Developments Pty Ltd v. Scenic Rim Regional Council & Ors [2010] QPEC 7
PARTIES:
FILE NO/S:
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	3 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
JUDGE:	Robin QC DCJ
ORDER:
CATCHWORDS:	Directions in developer appeal - correspondent which potentially might be asked to dedicate part of its land to accommodate access to it and to the developer's site opposite from a new roundabout, loath to be committed to an early hearing - developer unhappy at being deferred even beyond the next "pool"
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2747 of 2008

GAVEN DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD	Applicant
and
SCENIC RIM REGIONAL COUNCIL and OTHERS	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/02/2010

ORDER

HIS HONOUR: I make an order in terms of the initialled draft. That causes dissatisfaction to Mr McNaughton's client, the 146th co-respondent by election, which operates a Prescare facility opposite the appellant developer's site. Mr McNaughton has gone so far as to raise a jurisdictional question as to the Court's ability to vacate Judge Searles’ order fixing a review for the 12th of February 2010. The appellant wants that arrangement changed because, as I am told, the Court has "callover reviews" on the 10th and 11th of February but not on the 12th of February, although that is a mentions day. The appellant is concerned to establish an ability to have its appeal heard in the March pool, having, as it accepts, lost any practical prospect of retaining the February pool to which the matter was previously assigned. See [2009] QPEC 119.

There are issues particularly to do with traffic and a roundabout which might well be the best way for dealing with traffic issues at the entrance to the site and the opposite entrance to the Prescare facility.

Although he seems to be forced because of a late start to operate on a compressed time table, Mr Camilleri, who's been brought into the matter by Prescare, is apparently available to comply with the time table which the appellant proposes for activity by the traffic engineers of whom he'd be the fourth to become involved. 

It's not a simple matter of resolving a traffic engineering issue as to the appropriateness of the roundabout under consideration.  Assuming the hurdle of the Main Roads Department's acceptance of the roundabout on its road is overcome, there will be a separate issue involving Prescare as to whether it is willing to make some of its land available to accommodate the roundabout which may well be either necessary or required by the Department.  Prescare will be entitled to time to consider its attitude to that matter.

Mr McNaughton is concerned that costs might be wasted if the parties are forced to prepare for a March hearing which, for one reason or another, in the event can't go ahead.  I'm sympathetic to the appellant in circumstances where it's lost the chance of a hearing in February but accept that it remains to be seen whether the allocation of the March callover which I have ordered is appropriate and for that reason I've made that arrangement subject to confirmation at review which I think ought to be changed for the administrative reasons adverted to above to the previous day.

I regard Judge Searles’ fixing the review date as of an administrative character, such that it is open to one to vary it. So, order as per initialled draft.

‑‑‑‑‑