Kerr v Chief Executive, Primary Industries Corporation

[1995] QLC 18

[1995] QLC 18

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

31 March 1995

(A94-55)

Re:  Appeal against a decision to refuse a
Waterworks Licence Application - Water Resources Act 1989

R.J. Kerr
  v.
  Chief Executive, Primary Industries Corporation

(Hearing at Atherton)

DECISION

Mr R.J. Kerr made application for a waterworks licence on 5th February, 1993 under s.4.17 of the Water Resources Act. The application (No 55463) was in connection with a proposal to take water from North Cedar Creek by way of a 75mm centrifugal pump to irrigate 20 hectares on Portion 79, Parish of Ravenshoe.
           In a letter dated 27th June, 1994, Mr Kerr was notified that the application was refused "on the grounds that there is insufficient water availability in North Cedar Creek to meet the needs of existing Licenses."
           Mr Kerr appealed from that decision to the Land Court pursuant to s.4.26(1) of the Act.  The grounds of appeal were as follows:

"My farm is below the weir which supplies the town's water.  I consider that Licences above the weir should not have been granted in the first place, especially if they are only used to water pasture or fodder and if they sprinkle in the daytime thus wasting water.  The town already has water supply problems and there is the 'matter of hygiene and other health and safety problems.  "

The matter was set down for hearing at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23rd February, 1995 at the Court House, Atherton.  The notice to Mr Kerr of the case coming on for hearing was dated 25th November, 1994.  When the case was called on there was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Kerr.  Counsel for the Chief Executive called Mr R.P. Walsh, Technical Officer (Stream Control) through whom was tendered a statement in connection with the application, the inquiry into the application and the reasons for the Chief Executive's decision.
           S.4.26(4B) places the burden of proof of a ground stated in the notice of appeal on the appellant.  This has not occurred.  The Court has been satisfied that the decision of the Chief Executive was made after the relevant requirements of s.4.18 had been met.
           In determining the appeal, the decision of the Chief Executive is confirmed.

(RE Wenck)          

Member of the Land Court