Gregory Arthur Bickle v Brisbane City Council

[2011] QPEC 19

[2011] QPEC 19

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 3658 of 2010

GREGORY ARTHUR BICKLE	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER	Respondents

P & E Appeal No 3661 of 2010

ANDREW SONTER AND HEATHER RIPLEY	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER	Respondents

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/02/2011

..DAY 1

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Submitter appeal in which appellant sets up unusually heavy demands on his time and energies in his professional field and seeks in consequence to delay the steps to be taken before hearing - timetable suitable to co-respondent developer, the Council, and appellants in another submitter appeal endorsed by court, but on the express basis that it be reviewed on the next mention date in light of appellant's situation - it is anticipated that the Council will support the development application

HIS HONOUR:  The court has made orders as per the initialled drafts provided by Mr Quirk calculated to advance these two adverse submitter appeals to a hearing in the July sittings.

The complicating feature is the extraordinary demands upon the time and energies of the appellant, Mr Bickle, who is a chartered loss adjuster, flowing from the recent local natural disasters.  He is concerned that those will be exacerbated by the earthquake that struck Christchurch yesterday, not necessarily because his services might be required in Christchurch - although I understand from him that inquiries have been made seeking assistance - but because Christchurch may cause a loss of some of the assistance in his professional field which might otherwise be brought into Queensland to help here.

He has a legitimate concern as a resident and owner in a two townhouse development adjacent to the co-respondent's development site.  The other appeal by Mr Sonter and Ms Ripley is being conducted by a firm of solicitors Quinlan Miller and Treston, who originally represented Mr Bickle in his appeal as well.  He tells the court that he's been too occupied professionally to get to see the firm and has elected to act in person.

He tells the court from the Bar table that he anticipates difficult demands on his time for as long as a year, but has preposed a general three month extension of the timetable suggested by Mr Quirk.  This is the second instance to come before me in recent weeks of a submitter in a situation of opposing and delaying a developer by seeking considerable additional time for taking steps in an appeal.  In the other matter I have in mind the submitter had the comfort of being on the same side as the Council which was opposed to the development.  Here the Council has, by granting an approval, been supportive of the development.

In the other matter I was disinclined to indulge the submitter by allowing additional time on the basis that so far as could be foretold the Council had continued to oppose the development proposal.  Although Mr Sonter and Ms Ripley are doing the same here that wouldn't give Mr Bickle the same comfort as the other submitter I referred to had.  Their interest is as occupants of another apartment building in the vicinity and perhaps is of a lesser order than Mr Bickle’s; their experience and resources may fall short of the Council’s. 

It was news to Mr Quirk that Mr Bickle would take the stance he does today.  He's not really prepared to meet it, but has told the court that there is for his client's site an extant approval for a five storey building; the current one (which cannot be acted on unless it survives or is renewed in the appeal) has seven storeys.  Mr Bickle confirmed that he has no objection to the five storey proposal, the taller one may well have qualitatively different impacts on his view, on his enjoyment of a relatively open amenity and the like.

I have determined to leave standing all of the directions sought by Mr Quirk, subject to a delay in the date for specifying names and field of expertise of experts to be engaged to indulge Mr Sonter and his partner, who will be overseas for a period.

I understand and formally acknowledge in these remarks that Mr Bickle may have a difficulty in attending the without prejudice meeting directed before the Registrar by the 6th of April, although it may very well be in his interests to attend that if he can.

The next step is a review on the 20th of April 2011 which precedes the dates for all other steps covered in the order.  I have expressly set out in the order in Mr Bickle's appeal that on the forthcoming review the appropriateness of all directions in respect of Mr Bickle's ability reasonably to comply with them is to be reviewed.  It may be appropriate for relevant assertions to be supported by evidence which is amenable to chellenge.

I confess to genuine uncertainty as to what attitude the court does or ought to take in circumstances such as the present where unusual circumstances personal to a submitter are relied on to delay what would be the ordinary course of resolving disputes about development approvals.

Order as per initialled draft in each matter.

-----