Lewani Springs Resort Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council

[2009] QPEC 133

[2009] QPEC 133

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2143 of 2009

LEWANI SPRINGS RESORT PTY LTD
(ACN 068 977 104)

Appellant

and

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL

and

ALDI STORES (A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP)

Respondent (No 2)

Co-Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/11/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Where "preliminary point" determined favourably to co-respondent developer in adverse submitter appeal - limited directions made to facilitate progress of appeal pending the next mention date when fuller directions were anticipated

HIS HONOUR: The court published reasons to the parties last Friday for the conclusion that the circumstances are proper ones for the Court to grant the co-respondent developer relief under section 4.1.5A of the Integrated Planning Act 1997.

The matter has been listed today for the making of a formal order, which in a sense is hardly necessary since all that's been determined is that the appeal should proceed to hearing.  In the interest of all parties, however, it's advisable to identify a date which will start the appeal period running.  The co-respondent developer is anxious to advance its appeal and hoping to retrieve the hearing dates tentatively arranged for the February 2010 sittings, by assignment to the relevant callover.  Directions in that regard were vacated when the preliminary point was set down for hearing.  I'm sorry for the delay in the publication of my reasons on account of circuit commitments.  The pressure of a lot of work has interfered with the progress of the appeal.

The directions sought by Mr Job on behalf of the co-respondent for its further progress are modest, and will need to be supplemented when the matter comes on for mention next week.  I agree with Mr Job that the time between now and then ought to be employed usefully in progressing the matter, and therefore have made limited directions against the wishes of the appellant or the presumed wishes of the appellant, which Mr Williamson says is the difficulty of having had only a very short time to think about what might happen next.

The directions in today's order, so far as the appellant is concerned, don't require anything to be done in advance of the mention date when the appropriateness of the directions that I've decided to make can be revisited.

There will be an order in terms of the initialled draft.

-----