Lachlan Reit Ltd v Beaudesert Shire Council

[2006] QPEC 52

[2006] QPEC 052

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No BD4746 of 2005

LACHLAN REIT LIMITED	Appellant
(ACN 081 102 534)
and
BEAUDESERT SHIRE COUNCIL	Respondent
and
BEAUY DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD	Co-respondent
(ACN 111 227 144)
BRISBANE ..DATE 21/04/2006
0RDER

Catchwords respondent's development application refused on grounds of admitted defects in carrying out of the application stage and the notification stage.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

21042006 T09/JRR15 M/T CMS45/2006 (Robin DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: There's been no need for the Court to embark on a	1
hearing of this appeal as the parties have resolved it, inviting the Court to make by consent an order in terms of a draft handed up, which I have initialled.

10

So there will be an order in terms of the initialled draft.

It is an unusual document, in my experience, in giving chapter and verse for the determinations by the Court included in the order that there was non-compliance with the provisions of

20

Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and non-compliance with the provisions of Part 2 of Chapter 3.

The detail given includes erroneous descriptions of land and of the applicant's name, in one respect there was omission to

30

notify an adjoining owner. It seems too that the written notice given to adjoining landowners may have incorrectly described the nature of the development application.

There is also a determination by the Court necessary (the

40

evidence to support which is in an affidavit of Mr Lee which development application did not cover the aspect of the land being included on the Environmental Management Register as contaminated land. See items 5 and 6 in Part 1 Table 2 of

50

Schedule 8 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and s 3.1.2.

The consequence of those matters, as the signed order
indicates, is that the appeal is allowed and the co-
21042006 T09/JRR15 M/T CMS45/2006 (Robin DCJ) 2 ORDER 60

respondent's development application refused, without any	1
order as to costs.
The Court has never got into the merits of the appeal. It has not been asked to consider whether the development, which the

10

Council approved, ought to have been approved if an examination of the planning merits were undertaken. That is obviously the view the Council took and a view which the appellant exercised its right to challenge, in the end successfully. The issues, the Court hears from the Bar Table,

20

are probably somewhat more involved than what I have said
would indicate, but the document I have signed incorporates

matters which the parties have been able to agree about.

The technical non-compliances described in the order are

30

important enough to lead to the appeal's having been allowed -
but the Court is willing to make it clear, although I might
say Mr Haydon, for the co-respondent, hasn't requested this,
that the appeal is allowed without examination of the merits.

So, order as per initialled draft.

40

-----

50

3 ORDER 60