R v Resource Planning and Development Commission; Ex Parte Hayward - [2000] TASSC 40

[2000] TASSC 40

CITATION:R v The Resource Planning & Development Commission; ex parte Hayward [2000] TASSC

PARTIES: R
v

THE RESOURCE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HAYWARD; John McClure; ex parte

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  M292/1999
DELIVERED ON:  4 May 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  3 April 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J
CATCHWORDS:

Administrative Law - Judicial review at common law - Procedural fairness - Disqualification from bias - In general - Direction to planning authority to make draft amendment did not, in circumstances of case, give rise to an apprehension of bias in the decision making process.

R v The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546; R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248; Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288; Re JRL Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342; Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568, applied.
Aust Dig Administrative Law [65]

Administrative Law - Judicial review at common law - Procedural fairness - In general - No breach of rules of natural justice.

Aust Dig Administrative Law [51]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Prosecutor:  A M Blow QC
             Respondent Commission:              T J Ellis
             Meander Valley Council:                M J Brett
Solicitors:
             Prosecutor:  Ogilvie McKenna
             Respondent Commission:              Director of Public Prosecutions
             Meander Valley Council:                Rae & Partners

Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 40
Number of Paragraphs: 40

Serial No 40/2000
File No M292/1999

THE QUEEN v THE RESOURCE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; ex parte JOHN McCLURE HAYWARD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

4 May 2000

The prosecutor lives near Weegena, a small township not far from Deloraine. He and his wife own two properties which have a combined area of approximately 24 hectares. Both properties lie within the Kentish Municipality on the boundary of that municipality and the Meander Valley Municipality. With the exception of the enclave which is the smaller of the two pieces of land owned by the prosecutor and his wife, the boundary between the two municipalities at this point is the Mersey river.

A draft Planning Scheme was prepared by the Meander Valley Council. Included in it was land on the other side of the river from the prosecutor's land. On 19 December 1995, the Land Use Planning Review Panel ("the Panel"), the predecessor of the Resource Planning & Development Commission ("the Commission"), certified in accordance with the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 ("the Act"), s24(2)(a) that the draft Scheme was suitable for public exhibition.

The exhibited draft Scheme proposed that the land across the river from the prosecutor's land, together with other lands in the vicinity, be zoned Residential 2 ("R2"). Forestry was a proposed discretionary use for land zoned R2.

Many representations were received by the Meander Valley Council. The statutory procedures prescribed by the Act for the implementation of a planning scheme were followed. The Panel conducted hearings. Throughout this process, the prosecutor and others expressed…

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 R v Resource Planning and Development Commission; Ex Parte H... 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: [2000] TASSC 40
Decision Date: 4 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of R v Resource Planning and Development Commission; Ex Parte Hayward was brought before Underwood J. The prosecutor, who resides near Weegena and owns properties within the Kentish and Meander Valley Municipalities, sought to challenge a decision made by the Resource Planning and Development Commission. The Commission had directed the Meander Valley Council to amend the Meander Valley Planning Scheme to allow forestry as a discretionary use in a residential zone. The prosecutor argued that the decision was made with apparent bias and a denial of natural justice. The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the decision-making process demonstrated apprehended bias and whether the report of the hearing conducted by the Commission's delegates was defective, leading to a denial of natural justice.

The court found that the Commission's decision to amend the Planning Scheme did not give rise to an apprehension of bias. The Commission initiated the amendment to provide natural justice to landowners who had not been heard previously and to avoid potential litigation that could invalidate the entire Planning Scheme. The court concluded that the Commission's actions were in line with its statutory objectives and did not exhibit bias. Furthermore, the court held that the report of the hearing was not defective, as it sufficiently captured the issues raised during the hearing, and any omissions did not result in a denial of natural justice to the prosecutor.

In conclusion, the court discharged the order and dismissed the prosecutor's claims of apprehended bias and denial of natural justice. The decision to amend the Meander Valley Planning Scheme by the Resource Planning and Development Commission was upheld.

Orders