Paringa Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v. Peak Downs Shire Council

[2008] QPEC 91

[2008] QPEC 91

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E No 1510 of 2007

PARINGA PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD

Appellant

and

PEAK DOWNS SHIRE COUNCIL

and

DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS

and

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES

Respondent

Co-Respondent

Co-Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/10/2008

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 Ch 3 part 2 -
s 4.1.5A, s 4.1.55 - indulgence granted to developer appellant in respect of newly discovered ommission to supply material as required by the Act to one (only) of the referral agencies -stages of certain steps in relation to the appeal caused by extension of time.

HIS HONOUR:  The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft.  It contains some indulgences to rectify the failure by the appellant developer and the council to appreciate at the relevant time that the Main Roads Department was a referral agency for purposes of the development application which seeks approval for a feed lot in the Capella area.

The requirement does not arise from the site being located directly on one of Department's roads but from the mere fact of the application being for a feed lot capable of accommodating animals beyond a certain number.  Obviously there may be implications for use of the Main Roads network. 

The Department of Primary Industries' involvement had been acknowledged all along.  It wasn't until the appeal against the council's refusal of the application that Mr Smith, the respondent's solicitor, became cognisant of the omission. 

Contact was made with the Main Roads Department then and it seems there are some issues which will have to be sorted out relating to its area of interest. The Department has now had the opportunity to put forward its views and will have that right in the appeal. It's represented by Ms Azimi, rather, the Chief Executive is, who offers no objection to the indulgence sought under section 4.1.5A of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 in respect of non-compliance with the requirements of Chapter 3 Part 2 of the Act relating to referral of the application to the second co-respondent.

There are also extensions of time under section 4.1.55 sought.  Those simply regularise things which have already occurred, but late, namely service of the second co-respondent with the appeal and extension of the time within which the second co‑respondent might elect to become a co-respondent under section 4.1.43(3)(b) of the Act to the 25th of September 2008 when that election was in fact made.

Order as per initialled draft.

‑‑‑‑‑