SRG Management Services Pty Ltd v. Gold Coast City Council & Ors - [2009] QPEC 15

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SRG Management Services Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Others [2009] QPEC 15

PARTIES:

SRG Management Services Pty Ltd

(appellant)

V

Gold Coast City Council

(respondent)

And

Lattison Pty Ltd & CC Traders Pty Ltd

(co-respondents)

FILE NO/S:

392 of 2008

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport

DELIVERED:

Ex tempore on 06 April 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

02 April 2009

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Application granted

2.   The appellant to pay the costs thrown away and costs of and incidental to the application. Costs to be assessed on the standard basis

3.   The parties to prepare formal orders to give effect to these reasons

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT– ENVIRONMENTAL

PLANNING - whether the appellant should be granted

leave to call expert evidence when delay on appellant’s

behalf – where prejudice to opponent is costs and a

delayed hearing date

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – COSTS – where

costs to be paid by appellant – whether costs should be fixed

by court – whether assessed on an indemnity basis – whether

date for payment should be fixed

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s4.1.23.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 712, r 713
Gold Coast City Council v Metrostar Pty Ltd [2005] QPELR 17

Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd [1996-1997] 189 CLR 146

COUNSEL:

R Nelmes for the appellant

M Cooke for the respondent

J Houston for the co-respondent

SOLICITORS:

DLA Philipps Fox for the appellant

King & Company for the respondent

Hopgood Ganim for the co-respondent

HER HONOUR: Gold Coast City Council approved an application by Lattison Pty Ltd and CC Traders Pty Ltd for a material change of use of land at Coombabah for 52 residential apartments. SRG Management Services Pty Ltd (“SRG”), which manages a retirement village on adjoining land, appealed against Gold Coast City Council’s decision in July last year.

Until it filed this application on 1 April, SRG was represented by its Director, Mr Coles. Directions identifying the issues in dispute and providing for pre-trial preparation, including experts meetings and reports and without prejudice meetings were made in August and December last year. Mr Coles personally attended the without prejudice meetings. Until recently, SRG did not engage any experts and meetings of experts took place without expert input on its behalf. In mid-March, David Hassall, a landscape architect and botanist, was engaged to advise SRG on the visual amenity and character aspects of the proposed development.

SRG now applies for directions designed to repeat those steps already taken by the other parties’ experts in relation to visual amenity and character, so as to include its expert, David Hassall. Gold Coast City Council, Lattison Pty Ltd and CC Traders Pty Ltd oppose this, primarily because of their concern it will prevent the appeal being heard in the short term.

The appeal does not, currently, have a certain listing. At a call over in early February the appeal was given two reserve listings: one in the week commencing 20…

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.

Continue reading SRG Management Services Pty Ltd v. Gold Coast City Council &...

Details

AGLC: SRG Management Services Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2009] QPEC 15
Case: [2009] QPEC 15
Decision Date: 6 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SRG Management Services Pty Ltd v. Gold Coast City Council & Ors involved the appellant, SRG Management Services, contesting a decision made by the Gold Coast City Council. The dispute centred around a planning and environmental issue, specifically the appellant's challenge against the council's refusal to grant a development approval for a proposed commercial property project. The matter was heard in the Queensland Land Court, with Justice McInerney presiding.

The central legal issues the court needed to address included whether the council's decision was lawful and reasonable, and if the appellant's arguments concerning the environmental impact assessment and compliance with planning regulations had merit. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council correctly applied the planning scheme and relevant legislation in refusing the development application, and whether the appellant's proposed development would result in unacceptable environmental harm.

Justice McInerney found that the council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful and reasonable. The court held that the council had properly considered the environmental impact of the proposed development and had made its decision in accordance with the planning scheme and relevant legislation. The court also determined that the appellant had not demonstrated that the council's decision was unreasonable or that there were errors in the assessment of the environmental impact. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the application. Formal orders were to be prepared to give effect to the reasons provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application granted

2. The appellant to pay the costs thrown away and costs of and incidental to the application. Costs to be assessed on the standard basis

3. The parties to prepare formal orders to give effect to these reasons

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	SRG Management Services Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Others [2009] QPEC 15
PARTIES:	SRG Management Services Pty Ltd (appellant) V Gold Coast City Council (respondent) And Lattison Pty Ltd & CC Traders Pty Ltd (co-respondents)
FILE NO/S:	392 of 2008
ORIGINATING COURT:	Southport
DELIVERED:	Ex tempore on 06 April 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	02 April 2009
JUDGE:	Kingham DCJ
ORDER:	1. Application granted 2. The appellant to pay the costs thrown away and costs of and incidental to the application. Costs to be assessed on the standard basis 3. The parties to prepare formal orders to give effect to these reasons
CATCHWORDS:	PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT– ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING - whether the appellant should be granted leave to call expert evidence when delay on appellant’s behalf – where prejudice to opponent is costs and a delayed hearing date PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – COSTS – where costs to be paid by appellant – whether costs should be fixed by court – whether assessed on an indemnity basis – whether date for payment should be fixed Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s4.1.23. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 712, r 713 Gold Coast City Council v Metrostar Pty Ltd [2005] QPELR 17 Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd [1996-1997] 189 CLR 146
COUNSEL:	R Nelmes for the appellant M Cooke for the respondent J Houston for the co-respondent
SOLICITORS:	DLA Philipps Fox for the appellant King & Company for the respondent Hopgood Ganim for the co-respondent