Grant v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Anor - [2005] QPEC 36

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Grant v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Ors [2005] QPEC 036

PARTIES:

JAMES HENRY GRANT
Appellant
v
PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL
Respondent
And
ROSS NEILSON PROPERTIES PTY LTD
Co-Respondent
And
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Second Co-Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD172 of 2005

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Application in pending proceedings

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning & Environment Court of Queensland, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2005

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson SC

ORDER:

Declare that the appellant’s submission of 1 July 2004 is a properly made submission

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING – PLANNING LAW – CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATION – construction of Integrated Planning Act 1997 – discretion of Court – whether submission delivered one day late may be excused

Integrated Planning Act 1997, s 4.1.5A

Cases considered:
Country and City Supermarkets Ltd v Redcliffe City Council (1983) QPLR 360
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570
Hamill v Brisbane City Council & Anor (2004) QPEC 030
Hannay v Brisbane City Council (1999) 2 Qd R 54
Hembrow v Albert Shire Council (1995) QPLR 1
Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1971) 25 LGRA 12462/2005.
Mudie v Gatton Shire Council (1998) QPELR 375
Oakden Investments Pty Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council (2002) 125 LGERA 256
Queensland v Nanango Shire Council (1999) QPELR 116
Reithmuller v Brisbane City Council & Anor (2004) QPEC 064
Ridgewood Developments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1985) Qd R 48
Soyka v Hervey Bay City Council (2002) PEC 30
Zangzinchai v Milanta (1994) 125 ALR 265

COUNSEL:

Mr P Lyons QC and Mr Houston for the Applicant/Appellant
Mr A N Skoien for the Respondent
Mr M D Hinson SC for the Co-Respondent
Mr T Y Law for the Second Co-Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Simmonds Crowley & Galvin for the Appellant
Connor O’Meara for the Respondent
Deacons Lawyers for the Co-Respondent
Crown Law for the Second Co-Respondent

The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) permits appeals to this Court against the planning decisions of local authorities by persons who qualify as ‘submitters’. The process of qualification involves compliance with certain procedures under IPA and this application concerns the appellant’s failure to strictly meet them, and whether that may be excused.

The appeal proper arises from the respondent Council’s decision to approve the Co-Respondent’s application to use certain land at 2 Goodrich Road West, Murrumba Downs for the purposes of a neighbourhood centre. Other parties have also appealed[1].
[1] Westfield Limited v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Ors, Appeal 170/2005; Beaches of 1770 Pty Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Ors, Appeal 162/2005.

IPA s 4.1.28(1) provides that ‘… a submitter for a development application may appeal to the Court’ about the granting of a development approval; a submitter is defined in IPA Sch 10 as ‘… a person who makes a properly made submission about the application’. The phrase ‘properly made submission’ was at the relevant time[2] defined…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grant v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] QPEC 36
Decision Date: 18 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the matter were Grant, the appellant, and Pine Rivers Shire Council and another, the respondents. The dispute was primarily concerned with the interpretation of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, specifically in relation to the timing of submissions made in a planning application process. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the late submission of a document by one day could be considered valid and properly made, under the relevant legislation. This question was critical as it involved determining the extent of the court's discretion in interpreting and applying the statutory provisions. The court had to consider whether strict adherence to the statutory timeframe was mandatory or whether the court could exercise some flexibility in exceptional circumstances.

The court, in delivering its judgment, analysed the relevant provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. It found that while the legislation provided for specific timeframes within which submissions must be made, there was also an implicit discretion vested in the court to consider whether a late submission could be excused in certain circumstances. The court held that the appellant's submission, despite being one day late, was made in good faith and without any prejudice to the respondents. The court deemed it appropriate to exercise its discretion to accept the late submission as properly made. Consequently, the court declared that the appellant's submission of 1 July 2004 was indeed a properly made submission within the meaning of the legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Declare that the appellant’s submission of 1 July 2004 is a properly made submission

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Grant v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Ors [2005] QPEC 036
PARTIES:	JAMES HENRY GRANT Appellant v PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent And ROSS NEILSON PROPERTIES PTY LTD Co-Respondent And THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND Second Co-Respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD172 of 2005
DIVISION:	Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:	Application in pending proceedings
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning & Environment Court of Queensland, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2005
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson SC
ORDER:	Declare that the appellant’s submission of 1 July 2004 is a properly made submission
CATCHWORDS:	PLANNING – PLANNING LAW – CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATION – construction of Integrated Planning Act 1997 – discretion of Court – whether submission delivered one day late may be excused Integrated Planning Act 1997, s 4.1.5A Cases considered: Country and City Supermarkets Ltd v Redcliffe City Council (1983) QPLR 360 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 Hamill v Brisbane City Council & Anor (2004) QPEC 030 Hannay v Brisbane City Council (1999) 2 Qd R 54 Hembrow v Albert Shire Council (1995) QPLR 1 Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1971) 25 LGRA 12462/2005. Mudie v Gatton Shire Council (1998) QPELR 375 Oakden Investments Pty Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council (2002) 125 LGERA 256 Queensland v Nanango Shire Council (1999) QPELR 116 Reithmuller v Brisbane City Council & Anor (2004) QPEC 064 Ridgewood Developments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1985) Qd R 48 Soyka v Hervey Bay City Council (2002) PEC 30 Zangzinchai v Milanta (1994) 125 ALR 265
COUNSEL:	Mr P Lyons QC and Mr Houston for the Applicant/Appellant Mr A N Skoien for the Respondent Mr M D Hinson SC for the Co-Respondent Mr T Y Law for the Second Co-Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Simmonds Crowley & Galvin for the Appellant Connor O’Meara for the Respondent Deacons Lawyers for the Co-Respondent Crown Law for the Second Co-Respondent