Gawler and Barossa Jockey Club v Corporation of Town of Gawler No. SCGRG 95/742 Judgment No. 5241 Number of Pages 5 Building Control and Town Planning (1995) 64 Sasr 598

The appeal before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia involved the Gawler and Barossa Jockey Club Inc. ("the Jockey Club") and the Corporation of the Town of Gawler ("the Council"). The Jockey Club sought to supplement its income from racing by displaying advertising signs on the Gawler Racecourse. The Council informed the Jockey Club that the signs were development as defined by the Development Act 1993 and required the Jockey Club to apply for planning consent for the erection of the signs. The Jockey Club applied for planning consent under protest. The Council refused the application. The Jockey Club appealed to the Environment Resources and Development Court ("the ERD Court"). The ERD Court decided that the signs were a development and the Jockey Club appealed to this Court from that decision. The central legal issue before the Court was whether the proposed advertisements mounted on the trailers were a development as defined by the Development Act 1993 and the Development Regulations 1993.

The Court held that the proposed advertisements mounted on the trailers were indeed a development as defined by the Act and the Regulations. The Court explained that the trailers, which were intended to be used on the racecourse for an indefinite period, constituted a use of the land for that purpose. This use was an act or activity in relation to land and thus fell within the terms of para 7 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations, which declares the commencement of the display of an advertisement to constitute development. The Court further held that the definition of "advertising display" in Schedule 1 of the Regulations did not alter the meaning of para 7 and that the trailers and frames erected on them to support the advertisements constituted a free-standing structure on land. The Court concluded that the proposed use of the advertising trailers constituted a development within the meaning of the Act and Regulations.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the ERD Court was correct in holding that the proposed advertisements were a development as defined by the Act and Regulations. The Court noted that the proposed use of the advertising trailers constituted a change in the use of land and thus a development, but it was not necessary to determine this point as the Court had already concluded that the proposed use was a development.