Harridan Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council

[2010] QPEC 121

[2010] QPEC 121

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 1034 of 2008

HARRIDAN PTY LTD	Appellant
and
REDLAND SHIRE COUNCIL & ANOR	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 28/07/2010

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Developer appeal against Council's granting a preliminary approval rather than a development permit - Council now supports a development permit but on the basis of conditions proposed by it, some of which are unacceptable to the appellant - whether additional experts should be permitted to cover "new" issues - whether court may compel cooperation of certain experts engaged by the Council who are now unwilling to continue
 

HIS HONOUR:  The court has made an order in terms of the initialled draft which provides directions for the future conduct of the appeal.

It began life as a developer's appeal against the Council's determination to grant a preliminary approval rather than the development permit which had been sought.

The Council is now more amenable to the development proposal but on the basis of a conditions package, certain elements of which are not acceptable to the appellant.

A dozen conditions in the draft conditions package, which is annexure “A” to the order, have been singled out as the disputed issues in the appeal.  Within a week the appellant is to provide particulars of the basis on which it disputes conditions.

Paragraph 6 of the order is unusual in contemplating that further experts may be nominated by the parties.  Experts have been actively involved in this appeal in accordance with an order of Judge Griffin SC made as long ago as 21 May 2008.

Some of the issues which have been the subject of discussion among the experts may have gone away, given the common ground reached by the parties.  New issues may have arisen, given the identification of contentious conditions necessitating the bringing in of new experts.

There are other practical difficulties which the effluxion of time bodes to cause to the Council.  Experts engaged by the Council have changed the way in which they work or practise and one or more may become or assert that he has become unable to act.

Mr Bitner has made it clear that the Council's preference is to retain the services of experts who have been identified and been active already.  He may not get their cooperation.

Whether an expert witness who has placed himself within the control of the court by accepting appointment is able to recuse himself is an interesting question.

Mr Quirk for the appellant and Mr Bitner have made it clear to the court that if new experts are to be brought in, that may well occur only on the basis of the court authorising it.  If there is to be any argument about that, that is an argument for another day.

So, order as per initialled draft.

‑‑‑‑‑