Millmerran Shire Council v Smith

[2003] QPEC 68

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Millmerran Shire Council v. Smith [2003] QPEC 068

PARTIES:

Millmerran Shire Council
Applicant
v
Christopher Lawrence Smith
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

2982/03

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment Court

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 November 2003

JUDGE:

Quirk DCJ

ORDER:

I declare that the Respondent’s use of land, namely, Lot 8 on RP211676, Parish of Bulli, County of Derby, and situated at Lot 8 Balinga Road, Wattle Ridge, Millmerran (“the subject land”) constitutes the occupation of a temporary dwelling on the subject land and is unlawful in that no current temporary occupation permit has been issued pursuant to the Planning Scheme by Council, and thereby constitutes a development offence pursuant to the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act.1.   

The Respondent is restrained from using the subject land for the occupation of temporary accommodation until he has obtained a current temporary accommodation permit issued by the Council.2.   

Should the Respondent fail to make application for a temporary accommodation permit within twenty eight (28) days of the date of this order he is to be restrained from occupying the premises on the subject land.3.   

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING CONTROL AND TOWN PLANNING – Town planning - application for declaration and consequential orders – unlawful use – temporary accommodation permit - jurisdiction

COUNSEL:

Mr S Ure for the Applicant

Respondent - self represented

SOLICITORS:

Bernays Lawyers for the Applicant

1. This is an application for a declaration that the respondent’s use of the subject land constitutes the occupation of a temporary dwelling and is unlawful in that no current temporary occupation permit has been issued pursuant to the Millmerran Shire Planning Scheme.  Two further orders are sought, namely an order restraining the respondent from so using the land and an order requiring the respondent to cease occupation of any temporary accommodation on the subject land within 14 days.

1. The respondent, by way of the material placed before this court, sought to argue that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this application. It is relevant to consider each of these submissions at the outset.

JURISDICTION

1. The respondent is the Chief Executive Officer of a community known as God’s State (Federal State) Independent Sovereign State of Australia (herein referred to as ISSA).  It is contended that the subject land forms part of an independent sovereign self government.

1. The respondent’s material and argument placed before the court comprise the affidavits of the respondent sworn 23 October 2003 and Mr Donald Cameron sworn 18 October 2003. The submissions contained in those affidavits are difficult to understand or to crystallise into propositions. Notwithstanding this, I understand the submissions to be as follows:

(a)        As a citizen of the ISSA the respondent is not subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia, including the laws of Queensland;

(b)        The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld) is invalid pursuant to sections 109, 116 and 118 of the Constitution of Australia;

(c)…