Oaky Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Central Highlands Regional Council

[2011] QPEC 72

[2011] QPEC 72

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 3806 of 2009

OAKY CREEK COAL PTY LTD	Appellant
and
CENTRAL HIGHLANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL & ORS	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 06/05/2011

ORDER

CATCHWORDS
Consent order proposed to resolve appeal made by court - minor change to plans to relocate driveways - shortened "currency period" included in order although no explanation offered, beyond it being part of the parties' agreement

HIS HONOUR:  The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which resolves this appeal.

It does not mention a small change to the development proposal which is for workers' accommodation in the Central Queensland coalfields in Tieri beyond a minor change permitted by an earlier order of Judge Searles.  These remarks are being made for the purpose of confirming, should an issue ever arise, that Mr Bitner drew the new change to the court's attention.  It appears from endorsements highlighted in yellow in the later of the two plans forming part of Exhibit 1.

The change is to driveway arrangements by widening one of two driveways in Malvern Avenue and dispensing with the other one which is to be replaced or at least have its function taken over by a driveway in an access road running at right angles to Malvern Avenue.  That is such a minor change in the circumstances that it should not stand in the way of the court making the order it is asked to.

A change has been made in the conditions package, annexure A, in the second paragraph which states, "This appeal has a currency period of four years and will remain in force until 15 December 2014."  That seems an odd arrangement, given that the currency period, now called the relevant period, which would ordinarily apply, would be four years, running from the date of the court's order, being today.

While Mr Bitner and Mr Kevin, representing the Council, were content to have the provision quoted deleted, Mr Houston for the co-respondent, Western Pacific Hotels Pty Ltd, submitted that the date was a matter of agreement and ought not to be tinkered with, the explanation for that date being agreed may be something quite accidental, such as the date of a letter, but Mr Houston has made his point.  In terms of actual events, nothing is likely to turn on this aspect.

‑‑‑‑‑