Geoffrey Hugh Stewart v Gerrick William George McQuade and Christine Mary McQuade No. Scgrg-96-1711 Judgment No. 6170 Number of Pages 11 Environment Law Development

In this case, the appellant, Geoffrey Hugh Stewart, brought an appeal against the decision of the Environment Resources and Development Court, which had dismissed his proceedings against the respondents, Gerrick William George McQuade and Christine Mary McQuade. The appeal concerns the interpretation of the Development Act, 1993, and the Development Regulations, 1993, in relation to a proposed development on the respondents' property. The respondents own a property at Stirling, where they have a house and conduct a riding school. They constructed another building on the property, which they were granted planning consent for under the repealed Act, but with conditions attached that it should not be used as a dwelling.

The appellant, who is a neighbour of the respondents, initiated proceedings in the Environment Resources and Development Court, alleging that the respondents were using the building as a self-contained residence or for tourist accommodation, contrary to the terms of the planning consent. A consent order was made, which, among other things, required the respondents to remove certain kitchen elements and restrict the use of the building. The respondents later applied to the District Council of Stirling for approval to reinstate the sink and stove in the building, which the Council refused, considering it a non-complying development.

The respondents appealed the Council's decision to the Environment Resources and Development Court, which found that the proposed development did not involve a change of use and must be given provisional development plan consent. The appellant then appealed the decision of the Environment Resources and Development Court to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The court's main task was to determine whether the proposed development involved a change of use of the building and of the land from its use as an ancillary building to an existing dwelling, to one as a dwelling. The court concluded that the proposal did not involve a change of use and that the proposed development did not alter the use from that of a building ancillary to a dwelling. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the decision of the Environment Resources and Development Court.