Sitelist Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council
[1999] QPEC 36
•31 August 1999
IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CAIRNS No. 36 of 1999
31ST AUGUST, 1999
[Sitelist Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council]
BETWEEN: SITELIST PTY LTD
Appellant
AND: CAIRNS CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
AND: KATH KILLILEA
Co-Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against the respondent council’s refusal of an application for a material change of use pursuant to the Integrated Planning Act 1997.
The proposal is to establish a retail fuel outlet within the boundary of the Festival Faire Shopping Centre which is located in the Cairns suburb of Manoora. The area which it is proposed the fuel outlet will occupy is currently part of the shopping centre carpark. The fuel outlet will occupy an area a little in excess of 1,000 m². It will be almost exclusively a retail fuel outlet. There will be no provision for mechanical repairs or servicing. Delivery of fuel to customers will primarily be by means of the “self serve” method. The development itself will contain a number of fuel and LPG dispensers. There will be a pay station at which customers will attend to pay for their fuel. A small range of retail lines such as drinks, cigarettes and confectionery will be available for sale at the pay station. A self serve facility for water and air will also be on site. In addition there will be the necessary facilities for the delivery and storage of fuel and LPG.
It is of significance to note that the outlet will trade under the name and style “WOOLWORTHS – PLUS PETROL”. It will be a significant part of the development’s marketing strategy that customers who produce dockets from Woolworths Supermarkets will be given a discount on the price of fuel they purchase at the outlet proportional to the amount they have spent at a Woolworths Supermarket. Although customers of any Woolworths supermarket may avail themselves of the discount it is anticipated that the majority of customers who obtain such a discount will shop at the Woolworths supermarket which is located within the Festival Faire Shopping Centre. It seems tolerably clear that this is one of the main reasons why the Festival Faire Shopping Centre has been chosen as a site for the Plus Petrol outlet.
The whole of the site of the Festival Faire Shopping Centre comprising approximately 6.43 hectares is zoned Business under the respondent’s transitional planning scheme. As may be observed the proposed development would occupy only a very small proportion of that shopping centre site. The principal road frontage of the shopping centre site is Alfred Street. This is a major arterial road in the Cairns City road system. It is a divided carriageway with multiple lanes travelling in each direction. On the other side of Alfred Street to the shopping centre is the BP Manunda Service Station. The northern boundary of the shopping centre site has frontage to Koch Street. On the other side of Koch Street to the shopping centre is a cycling velodrome. There is a convent school and church located to the north east of the shopping centre site. Other than the uses to which I have referred the shopping centre site is generally surrounded by substantial areas of Residential Zones permitting varying degrees of residential density. The proposed development fits within the definition of “service station” under the Transitional Planning Scheme. As such it is a permissible use within the Business Zone requiring impact assessment. Formerly it was a use which could be carried on with the consent of the co-respondent within the Business Zone.
I should say from the outset that it seems to me that the proposed development is entirely compatible with the use to which the shopping centre site is presently being put. One would imagine that most of the fuel which will be sold from the development would be to private motor vehicles. I have no hesitation in accepting the Town Planner’s evidence to the effect that it is a common feature of shopping habit for private motorists to combine a shopping excursion with obtaining fuel for the family motor vehicle. There is nothing about a retail fuel outlet which, in my view, is incompatible with a major shopping centre providing a large variety of retail outlets. In fact as I will later explain in more detail I consider it to be an added convenience to customers of the centre to have the availability of a facility to supply fuel for the family motor vehicle in close proximity to other comprehensive shopping facilities. So far as is relevant the statement of intent for the Business Zone under the Planning Scheme provisions is as follows:-
“The intent of the Business Zone is to provide sub-regional and district shopping facilities together with commercial, professional, medical and similar services and community facilities. The zone is intended to ensure that existing sub-regional or district centres develop into major community focal points providing a range of services. It is further intended that the existing shopping facilities within these centres should only be permitted to expand if there is a demonstrated need and demand for such expansion.”
As I have already indicated I consider the proposed fuel outlet to be quite compatible with other shopping facilities provided at the Festival Faire Shopping Centre. I consider the expression “with commercial, professional, medical and similar services and community facilities” to be descriptive rather than definitional. The proposed development will increase the range of shopping facilities available at the Festival Faire Shopping Centre. It will therefore contribute to the development of the centre into “a major community focal point providing a range of services.” I will consider issues of need and demand in more detail later in this judgment.
The respondent also has in force a Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan map specifically identifies the site of the Festival Faire Shopping Centre as a “major business centre”. The Strategic Plan, as may be expected, provides for future planning. It describes the major business centre designation as follows:-
“This designation indicates the areas which accommodate the sub-regional and/or district shopping and business centres. These centres are intended to compliment the role of the Central Business District in providing higher order shopping facilities and to cater for the convenience, needs of residents of adjacent areas. In some cases there is potential for limited expansion of these business centres. However, major expansion will be considered only if there is a demonstrated need and a demand for expansion. It is intended that major business centres may include retail, commercial, entertainment, medical and community facilities.”
Section 3.3 of the Strategic Plan sets out a number of planning objectives sought to be achieved in respect of shopping and business by the Strategic Plan and also the proposed means of implementation. I will only refer to those which I consider most directly relevant. Objective 2.6 “to promote consolidation within each of the three levels of the hierarchy of shopping and business centres”. The Strategic Plan seeks to implement that objective by favouring “development within all shopping and business centres which consolidate and compact a centre rather than expand the centre in linear fashion.” In my view the current proposal meets that objective and its means of implementation. In particular by locating the proposed development within the shopping centre there is a physical consolidation which serves to compact the centre. Further, the provision of the additional retail facility serves to promote the shopping and business centre in terms of its attractiveness to potential customers and will therefore benefit the whole centre.
Objective 4 seeks “ to encourage the development of complimentary facilities such as commercial, recreational, professional, medical or other community facilities and some entertainment facilities adjacent to shopping and business centres or neighbourhood shopping facilities.” Once again I consider that the proposed development will compliment the existing shopping and similar facilities already located at the Festival Faire Shopping Centre.
The respondent also has a transitional planning scheme policy entitled “Centres Planning Strategy”. That strategy has as one of its aims:-
“To recognise and to provide a planning decision framework for the changing patterns of fuel retailing from shopping centres.”
In connection with the above aim the policy lists 3 objectives as follows:-
1.Provide for the orderly development of retail fuel facilities within shopping centres according to a community based need for additional retail fuel outlets.
2.To promote traffic efficiency and safety in the development of retail fuel facilities in shopping centres.
3.To ensure that the development of retail fuel facilities within shopping centres is safe and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality.”
Certain traffic issues are raised in relation to this appeal and I will deal with the second objective in that context. No issue is raised in respect of objective 3. In respect of objective 1 the planning strategy sets out the following process of implementation:-
“(i)In assessing the level of community need for additional retail fuel facilities the Council will take into consideration such matters as population growth trends, motor vehicle registration trends and the availability and convenience of existing retail fuel facilities to serve the needs of the population within the likely sphere of influence of the shopping centre.
(ii)Where a retail fuel outlet is proposed to be established in conjunction with a shopping centre or a major retail component of a shopping centre, the Council will have regard for the following:-
(a)The need for additional retail fuel facilities in the locality and within the sphere of influence of the shopping centre as determined by its designated function within the retail hierarchy.
(b)The potential impacts of the development upon existing retail fuel outlets.
(c)The potential for the site of an existing retail fuel outlet to become blighted as a consequence of the additional facility.”
It will be noted both items (i) and (ii)(a) make reference to the sphere of influence of the shopping centre. Provision (ii)(a) also makes reference to that sphere of influence being determined “by its designated function within the retail hierarchy.” The Festival Faire Shopping Centre is designated as a neighbourhood centre by the centre’s planning strategy. I am of the view that little weight should be given to this designation in determining the sphere of influence of the Festival Faire Shopping Centre. To do so is to deny reality and in my view such a designation is also inconsistent with the Strategic Plan’s identification of the Festival Faire Shopping Centre as a “major business centre”. The planning study to the centre’s strategy notes that the Festival Faire Shopping Centre has a retail floor area of 19,360 square metres of which 10,060 square metres is retail floor space. One of the characteristics of a neighbourhood centre listed in the strategy is a retail floor area not exceeding 10,000 square metres. Another matter referred to as a characteristic of a Neighbourhood Centre is “convenient access to the public transport system and access to a road of collector level function”. The main road frontage of the Festival Faire Shopping Centre is of a significantly higher status than that of a road performing a collector level function. It is in fact a major arterial road. By comparison with the other shopping centres designated as Neighbourhood Centres in the Planning Strategy the Festival Faire Shopping Centre is much larger and is the only centre having a full line supermarket on site. I am also satisfied on the evidence which I have heard that the Festival Faire Shopping Centre serves a much greater population than the 5,000 to 8,000 households referred to in the Planning Strategy. Whilst it is probably right to say that the Festival Faire Shopping Centre is a little smaller in terms of its size and the number of people with which use it compared to those centres designated as key sub-regional centres, in my view it is substantially larger and more significant to the Cairns region than a Neighbourhood Centre as the Planning Strategy purports to suggest. I do not read Implementation (i) as confining the level of community need for additional retail fuel facilities to only those matters which are expressly mentioned in the paragraph. However in relation to those matters the evidence shows that population in the Cairns region is continuing to grow at a rate of between 2 and 3% per annum. Vehicle registrations are growing at about 1.5% per annum. I accept the evidence of Mr. Shimmin as to the relevant trade area of the Festival Faire Shopping Centre and I accept his estimate that the average annual growth over the next 10 year period will be in excess of 2%. It is also relevant in my view to acknowledge that there is strong growth in traffic volume along Alfred Street which is growing at about 365,000 traffic movements per year. It is also relevant that there is an area of undeveloped residential land at Kanimbla which has the potential to yield approximately 700 residential allotments. That area of growth, in my view, is also relevant in that householders travelling from that area to undertake grocery shopping and the refuelling of family motor vehicles would likely be able to access the Festival Faire Shopping Centre without having to venture onto a major road.
It is necessary to consider the availability and convenience of existing retail fuel facilities to serve the needs of the population. As exhibit 9 amply illustrates the distribution of retail fuel facilities about the greater Cairns city area is not even. In particular there are two concentrations of retail fuel facilities. One is on Mulgrave Road to the south of the Central Business District and in the vicinity of the Stockland Earlville Shopping Centre. The other is along Sheridan Street which is the commencement of the Captain Cook Highway to the north of the Central Business District. The existence of such a large number of service stations in these localities in my view is historical and has substantially declined in relevance under current conditions. When the service stations on Mulgrave Road were established that was the major road into Cairns from the south. Whilst it is still a major road into Cairns from the south I have no doubt that the construction of the Southern Access Road which parallels the north coast railway on exhibit 9 has reduced, or at least reduced the growth of, traffic volumes flowing into Cairns City along Mulgrave Road. The historical factor which has led to the concentration of service stations on Sheridan Street is that Sheridan Street was the major road into and from the Central Business District to the north. In particular, it was a major road for the use of persons travelling through Cairns City from its southern side to its northern side. I have no doubt that the development of the major arterial road which includes Alfred Street, running past the Festival Faire Shopping Centre and the demonstrated high growth in traffic volume on that road has affected traffic flows along at least part of Sheridan Street. Part of the function of the major arterial road including Alfred Street is to provide a means for motorists to travel from the southern side of the city to the northern side of the city without travelling into the Central Business District.
Compared to Mulgrave Road and Sheridan Street, there are comparatively few service stations along Alfred Street and in the vicinity of the Festival Faire Shopping Centre. Once again referring to exhibit 9, there is the BP Service Station on the other side of Alfred Street, directly opposite the Festival Faire Shopping Centre. Further to the north at site 24 is a service station which is located on the south bound side of the Alfred Street arterial road. Site 26 is on the outbound side of Reservoir Road. Site 30 on exhibit 9, whilst geographically fairly close to Festival Faire, is not a service station which I consider to be reasonably convenient to the Shopping centre by reason of the street layout which would be required to be traversed in order to travel between the shopping centre and that site. In terms of convenience the service stations at sites 23 and 24 have their limitations. This is because of the nature of the Alfred Street road as a major arterial road. It would be no doubt convenient for shoppers travelling to Festival Faire from the north along the Alfred Street arterial road to purchase fuel at those service stations. They are on the same side of the road as the motorists would be travelling. On the other hand if there are other convenient ways of travelling to Festival Faire Shopping Centre motorists may well choose to avoid travelling south along the Alfred Street arterial road if they can conveniently access Festival Faire in some other manner because of the potential inconvenience of turning right across the Alfred Street arterial road to access the shopping centre. The service station on site 26 is convenient to those who are travelling outbound on Reservoir Road. There would no doubt be some persons who would travel home that way after shopping at the Festival Faire shopping Centre. Once again, however, there is substantial residential development (and potential residential development) immediately to the west of the Festival Faire site for which some inconvenience might be involved if residents were to travel out along Reservoir Road in order to purchase fuel on their way home from shopping. It is also of some significance in my view that between the commencement of the Alfred Street arterial road where it leaves Mulgrave Road and where that same arterial road joins Sheridan Street to the north there are no service stations on the left hand side of the road. The proposed fuel outlet in my view, would provide an additional degree of convenience to motorists travelling north along the Alfred Street arterial road by enabling them to turn left off that road, purchase their fuel and then resume their northward journey. I do not pretend that there is presently a serious level of unavailability or inconvenience arising out of the number and location of existing retail fuel facilities. However, I am satisfied that the establishment of the proposed facility would significantly enhance the existing availability and convenience of fuel outlets in that area of Cairns. For the same reasons I am satisfied that having regard to Implementation (ii)(a) there is sufficient need for the additional retail fuel outlet in the locality to support approval of the proposed facility.
As I perhaps foreshadowed during the course of the hearing of the appeal I do not consider that it is particularly relevant to be looking at the need for additional retail fuel facilities in reference to Cairns City as a whole. I have no doubt that existing retail fuel facilities throughout the Greater Cairns area, taken as a whole, have a substantial unused capacity to put fuel into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles, in the sense that the collective fuel storage facilities, number of fuel pumps and number of parking spaces on driveways is more than enough to meet the needs of motorists in the area. However, in my view, that is largely irrelevant. In my view, the need for any additional retail fuel outlets should be assessed by reference to geographical availability and convenience of access to the variety of local residents and visitors who have the need to use such facilities. The fact that there are probably too many service stations in some parts of Cairns is of no relevance in considering whether there is a reasonable need for additional retail fuel facilities in other parts where an additional fuel facility would clearly enhance the availability and convenience of purchasing fuel to a significant section of the community.
Implementation (ii)(b) and (c) require some detailed consideration. I should say that I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of the co-respondent and the operators of existing retail fuel outlets whom she represents. It is clear that they fear that the competition which will come from the proposed outlet will severely affect their businesses. However, apart from their own subjective fears about which I was told during the course of evidence there is no empirical evidence to support the proposition that existing retail fuel distributors will suffer individually and substantially by reason of the establishment of the appellant’s proposed outlet. The problem is that there is no empirical evidence at all to suggest that any particular existing retail fuel outlet will suffer a substantial loss of business as a result of the establishment of the proposed outlet. There is no doubt that the customers of the proposed outlet would purchase their fuel from some other retail outlet if the proposed outlet were not available. To that extent other outlets may potentially lose some custom. However, there is no evidence which persuades me that any existing individual outlet will suffer a major share of the loss of business. It may well be that if the proposed outlet were established that the loss of business would be unevenly proportioned amongst existing fuel outlets but in my view the most likely scenario is that the custom which the proposed outlet will attract will be transferred from a significant number of other outlets. I will deal with the particular position of the BP Manunda Service Station in more detail shortly. It is tolerably clear from the evidence which the co-respondent and other service station operators have given that the thing they fear most from the proposed outlet is price competition. They appear to hold the view, which may well be right, that motorists tend to shop around somewhat for the cheapest available petrol. But price competition cannot be something new to the retail fuel industry. If it is, it should not be. However, it is no part of any town planning function to be protecting the commercial interests and/or market share of individual business operators. The most obvious way to deal with price competition is to meet the competition. Other ways are the provision of additional services and the establishment of customer loyalty. It may well be that there are some service station operators on some sites who are doomed to failure irrespective of the establishment of the Plus Petrol operation. It seems likely that there will be periodic service station closures in the locations where there is an over-concentration of them already. Subject to what I have to say about the BP Manunda Service Station I am of the view that the transfer of business from other service station operators to the Plus Petrol operation will generally be fairly widely distributed amongst existing service station operators and that there is sufficient growth in the use of motor vehicles and the consumption of fuel in the Greater Cairns area to compensate existing operators for such transfer of business.
I now turn to consider the BP Manunda Service Station. I should record at this point that in respect of issues of need and the impact of the proposed development on other service station operators I prefer the evidence of Mr. Shimmins and Mr. Ingram to that of Mr. Norling. I think that Mr. Norling’s figure as to the volume of fuel sales necessary for a viable operation is not soundly based. It is clear that most retail fuel outlet operators are trading viably on a much lower figure. The BP Manunda Service Station requires particular consideration because one’s initial reaction is that the establishment of the Plus Petrol outlet could severely affect the viability of that business. However, there is really no solid evidence to support that proposition. It occurs to me that the operators of the BP Manunda Service Station would have been in a good position to conduct a survey over a short period of time to find out just how many of its customers purchased fuel from the service station in conjunction with a shopping trip to the Festival Faire Shopping Centre. Whilst I have no doubt that there are some customers of the BP Manunda who do combine a fuel purchase with a shopping trip to Festival Faire, in my view it cannot be assumed that they would necessarily be a very large number or proportion of the service station’s customers. The BP Manunda Service Station is on the opposite side of the road to the Festival Faire Shopping Centre. As I have already pointed out it is not particularly convenient to be making right hand turns across a major arterial road to get to the service station from the shopping centre or to the shopping centre from the service station. As a major arterial road it carries significant volumes of through traffic. As with any other service station I have no doubt that a significant part of the business of the BP Manunda Service Station comes from people who are travelling in a southerly direction along the major arterial road and who randomly select the BP Manunda as a place to purchase fuel. Further, as was made very clear in the evidence the operators of the BP Manunda Service Station have adopted a particular and perhaps, these days, almost unique market strategy to attract business. In particular, they provide a full driveway service and very consciously provide advice to motorists concerning any vehicle defects they might observe or any service needs which are apparent whilst carrying out such driveway service. I have no doubt that many of their customers appreciate this service, particularly since it is so rarely available from service stations these days. The result of this concentration on customer service is that the BP Manunda also has a thriving vehicle service and repair aspect to its operation. Once again this is fairly rare for retail fuel outlets in this day and age. Put simply, they provide the full range of traditional service station services which were commonly provided 20 years ago but which have now substantially faded from sight. As a result of this particular marketing strategy it seems that the BP Manunda has a comparatively high level of customer loyalty. In particular they offer credit facilities to well known and regular customers. I have no doubt that the provision of these additional customer services has attracted to the BP Manunda Service Station a significant number of local residents who purchase fuel at the BP Manunda and also have vehicle servicing and repairs done there. In my view there will be a proportion of such customers who would continue to purchase fuel at the BP Manunda for the very reason of the high level of customer service and satisfaction provided by the operators, and would continue to do so even if there was a slight price advantage in purchasing petrol from the Plus Petrol operation. In summary the BP Manunda Service Station is already providing comprehensive and additional services to its customers of the sort which would be capable of meeting competition from the Plus Petrol operation and it is therefore particularly well placed to resist any substantial transfer of retail fuel trade to the Plus Petrol operation.
There are other matters which need to be taken into account in considering the impact of the Plus Petrol operation upon the BP Manunda operation. The financial statements for the BP Manunda operation in my view demonstrate that the business is very profitable. This becomes particularly apparent when it is realised that considerable profit taking from the business occurs by the payment of salaries to the owners and members of their families. I have no doubt that the high level of profitability of the business is particularly attributable to the efforts of the operators and their management skills, not the least including their adoption of the strategy of providing comprehensive service to their customers. Whilst one would certainly not wish to see hardworking and skilled business people deprived of their profitability that cannot be a relevant consideration in a planning application. The point is, that there is considerable scope for the BP Manunda to withstand some transfer of custom to the Plus Petrol operation before the effect on the profitability on its operation would be so adverse as to threaten the viability of the business. Finally, it is clear from the evidence that the present operators of the BP Manunda have a limited tenure. I was told that BP Australia, which owns the site, proposes to redevelop the site as a service station a few years in the future. That will bring an end to the present operator’s tenure. What happens after that will really be a matter for BP Australia as to whether it operates the site itself or leases to the present operators or someone else. There is also no evidence to suggest that the establishment of the Plus petrol operation is likely to cause BP Australia to change its plans for the site. That last matter is relevant also to implementation (ii)(c). In my view there is no realistic potential for the site of the BP Manunda to become blighted. On the evidence the most likely future for the site will be its redevelopment and continuing use as a service station. In addition, in the unlikely event that the site should cease to be a service station site, it is a large and useful site with a long frontage to a major arterial road. I have no doubt that it would be an attractive site for a variety of commercial uses. In my view it is the remotest of possibilities that the site would become blighted.
The respondent raises a number of traffic issues which it submits should lead to the refusal of the application. In my view there is no substance to them. On the whole I prefer Mr. Viney’s evidence in that it has been directed to the circumstances of the particular case rather than adherence to what are arbitrary standards even though such standards may be based upon wide experience. The proposed development will result in the loss of 41 carparking spaces in the existing shopping centre car park. On the basis of Mr. Viney’s practical surveys I am of the view that the existing car parking spaces available to customers at the shopping centre are more than adequate to meet current needs. In other words, the car park is presently being under-utilised even at peak periods. Even if the car parking issue were critical it is no reason to refuse the application. For a start there is vacant land within the shopping centre site which could be paved and used for additional car parking spaces. In the end the shopping centre management could do what many shopping centres do when faced with a shortage of car parking spaces – it could build an above-ground level car park. However, the evidence suggests that there will be no such need in the foreseeable future.
I also accept Mr. Viney’s evidence that the proposed layout for the entry of vehicles into the fuel facility and the exit therefrom will not result in any significant interference from traffic proceeding to and from the fuel outlet with other internal traffic within the shopping centre and any traffic using the adjacent street. The point was also raised concerning the proposal that the tankers delivering fuel to the proposed site would have to use part of the shopping centre car park in order to exit the site. I cannot see that there is any significant objection to this and in particular I cannot see that the movement of refuelling tankers through the shopping centre car parking will create any hazardous situation. Firstly, the number of tanker movements through the site will be very small. Secondly, as the tanker exits through the car park it will no doubt be moving very slowly. It will be a large vehicle which can be readily seen by the drivers of other vehicles using the car park. In fact the area through which it is proposed the tanker will leave the site is that area of the shopping centre car park which seems to be little used. In my view it would be rare situation where the tanker could even potentially conflict with other vehicles in the car park. In any event, in my view, the possibility of a collision between the tanker and another vehicle is extremely remote. It would require either the driver of the tanker or the driver of some other vehicle to drift into gross inattention in order for any dangerous situation to be created.
I am also of the view that there is no substance to the suggestion that there might be conflict between service station traffic and shopping centre pedestrians. Pedestrians approaching from the shopping centre car park adjacent to the proposed fuel outlet or from Koch Street to the shopping centre would presumably be heading towards an entrance to that shopping centre. One might assume that such pedestrians would wish to take the most direct route to a shopping centre entrance. The location of the proposed site is such that it is more convenient for such pedestrians to take a route around the subject site to reach an appropriate entry to the shopping centre.
Lastly, I need to consider the issue of need in its general sense as distinct from the aforementioned provisions of the centre’s planning strategy. I am prepared to accept that the applicant has an obligation to demonstrate need in the relevant sense. For convenience I adopt a statement of Row DCJ in Leisuremark (Aust) Pty Ltd –v- Noosa Shire Council (1988) QPLR 137 at p.149:-
“Need in planning terms is a relative concept. It does not promote pressing urgency but rather relates to the general wellbeing of the community. A use is needed if it would on balance improve the services and facilities in the community.”
For the purposes of this case I am of the view that need is demonstrated if it is shown that the community generally, or at least a significant proportion of it, would benefit from the proposed development. I have already set out my findings concerning the benefits by way of availability and convenience arising out of the location of the proposed development. In my view, there is evidence also to suggest that the community would benefit economically from the proposal. Firstly, there is the benefit to Woolworths customers of the potential of obtaining discounts on their fuel purchases. There is also evidence, which I accept, that the establishment of the development would likely result in a slight overall reduction of retail fuel prices in Cairns. In my view this would be of benefit to the whole community.
I propose to order that the appeal be upheld. I will adjourn further proceedings to permit the parties to agree upon final orders consistent with the views expressed herein.
IN THE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT HELD AT
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT JURISDICTION
BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE WHITE Appeal No. 36 of 1999
BETWEEN: SITELIST PTY LTD.
Appellant
AND: CAIRNS CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
AND: KATH KILLALEA
Co -Respondent
Dates of hearing: 19/22 April, 1999
Judgment: 31st August, 1999
Solicitors: Allen Allen Hemsley for Appellant
Counsel: Mr. P. Lyons, Mr. Rackemann
MacDonnells for Respondent
Counsel: Mr. J. Haydon
Marino Smith for Co-respondent
Counsel: Mr. W. Cochrane
1
0
0