Metroplex Management P/L v Brisbane City Council

[2012] QPEC 34

[2012] QPEC 34

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE RACKEMANN

P & E Appeal Nos 2680 of 2007
                4061 of 2010

METROPLEX MANAGEMENT PTY LTD	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS	Respondents

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/4/2012

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  In this matter the parties are, I am told, agreed on the terms of an order which will soon be placed before me which will see the development approved, subject to conditions which have been agreed.

Some of the co-respondents ask that I make a further order or direction that, in the event that there are any requests to make any changes to the approval down the track, they be required to be given notice of that request.

This order or direction is not one which relates directly to the disposal of the proceedings before me, the merits of the proposal before me, or the terms or conditions upon which it should be approved. Rather, it focusses upon a possible future proceeding in relation to a possible future request to change the terms of this approval.

Requests to change approvals are regulated by the Act and the Act does not require that the parties to an appeal which resulted in an approval necessarily be given notice of a request to change.  That does not mean that, in a particular case, it may not be desirable or, indeed - if the party is directly affected - necessary to not only give notice but to make such a person a party to proceedings in respect of the change and, of course, it remains a matter for the Court whether a person who is not automatically a party should be made a party and be joined to a proceeding.

The concern of the co-respondents is they be given sufficient notice so that they can make an application to be joined as a party to some future proceedings.  However, as Mr Job has pointed out, that is not something which the statute contemplates as being required in all cases.

It must be remembered that future changes which might or might not be sought in respect of an approval are not necessarily matters which would concern the co‑respondents by election, who were effectively concerned mainly with environmental type issues.  It is possible that changes would be requested in the future which have nothing at all to do with those types of concerns.

Whilst I understand the desire of the environmental parties, as it were, to have a means for ongoing supervision, by way of notice, I do not think it appropriate to make such an order or direction in this case.

...

HIS HONOUR:  I'll make two further orders to the ones that are here.  Paragraph 2 will be "I direct that the proceedings is taken to have been discontinued forthwith".  Paragraph 3, "There is no order as to costs".  Order as per amended draft, initialled by me and placed with the papers.

‑‑‑‑‑