Meander Valley Council v RMPAT - [2018] TASSC 9

[2018] TASSC 9

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Meander Valley Council v RMPAT [2018] TASSC 9

PARTIES:  MEANDER VALLEY COUNCIL
  v
  RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

AND PLANNING APPEAL TRIBUNAL
TIMBER WORLD PTY LTD

FILE NO: 1805/2017
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Timber World Pty Ltd v Meander Valley Council

and Teen Challenge Inc [2017] TASRMPAT 37

DELIVERED ON:  2 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  18 October 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Environment and Planning – Environmental planning – Development control – Consents, approvals and permits – Validity – Generally – Tribunal found a permit should be categorised in a different proposed use class – This finding did not warrant the conclusion that the permit was invalid.

Jackson v Building Appeal Board [2010] TASSC 29, 20 Tas R 1, cited.
Woolworths Limited v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 422, 61 NSWLR 707, distinguished.

Aust Dig Environment and Planning [207/211]

Environment and Planning – Environmental planning – Development control – Consents, approvals and permits – Applications – Notice and advertising – Notice – Form and contents – Whether an incorrect categorisation of use on a permit would render notice deficient.

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas), s 59(3).
Land Use Planning and Approvals Regulations 2014 (Tas), reg 9.
Aust Dig Environment and Planning [88]

Environment and Planning – Courts and tribunals with environment jurisdiction – Tasmania – Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal and its predecessors – Powers and duties on appeal – Effect of an invalid permit on the Tribunal's jurisdiction – Failure to provide notice will not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction to determine an appeal which is otherwise competent – Tribunal erred when it determined that it was without jurisdiction.

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas) s 59(3).
Scurr v Brisbane City Council (1973) 133 CLR 242, cited.
Purton v Jackson [2016] TASSC 56, 223 LGERA 19, followed.
Dorset Council v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal [2014] TASSC 34, 23 Tas R 85, considered.

Aust Dig Environment and Planning [596]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  S B McElwaine SC
             Respondent:  A Beeson
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Shaun McElwaine + Associates
             Respondent:  Simmons Wolfhagen

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 9
Number of paragraphs: 65

Serial No 9/2018
File No 1805/2017

MEANDER VALLEY COUNCIL v RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING APPEAL TRIBUNAL and TIMBER WORLD PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

2 March 2018

This appeal concerns the proposed conversion and use of a property, formerly the Meander Primary School, as a rehabilitation centre for women and children. The site is located within the municipal area in respect of which the appellant, the Meander Valley Council (the Council), is the planning authority. The relevant planning scheme is the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 (the scheme), and the property is located in the Village Zone prescribed by that scheme. It is common ground that the property could only be used for the said purpose if a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Meander Valley Council v RMPAT and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] TASSC 9
Decision Date: 2 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Meander Valley Council versus RMPAT, the matter was brought before the court regarding a dispute about the validity of a permit issued by the Meander Valley Council. The respondent, RMPAT, had applied for and received a permit for a particular use of their property. The appellant, Meander Valley Council, contested the validity of this permit, arguing that it should have been categorised under a different proposed use class. The case was ultimately decided by the court, which had to determine the legal issues surrounding the classification and validity of the permit.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Tribunal's finding that the permit should be categorised under a different proposed use class warranted the conclusion that the permit was invalid. The court had to consider the extent to which the Tribunal's findings on the classification of the permit impacted its validity and whether there were any grounds upon which the Tribunal's decision could be faulted. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the Council's appeal against the Tribunal's decision was well-founded.

The court examined the Tribunal's decision and found that the Tribunal had not erred in its assessment of the permit's classification. However, the court also determined that this finding did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the permit was invalid. The court held that the Tribunal's error in classifying the permit did not affect its validity, as the permit remained lawful and in accordance with the relevant planning scheme. Consequently, the appeal by the Meander Valley Council was dismissed, and the permit issued to RMPAT was upheld as valid. The court's decision emphasised the importance of distinguishing between the classification of a permit and its validity, ensuring that any errors in classification do not automatically invalidate the permit.

Orders