Stockland Development Pty Ltd and Quinnco P/L v Gold Coast City Council

[2006] QPEC 109

[2006] QPEC 109

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 1204 of 2006

STOCKLAND DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
(ACN 000064 835)

and

QUINNCO PTY LTD
(ACN 010 200 594)  Appellants

and

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL  Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/09/2006

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Developer appeal against deemed refusal of application to extend currency period of an approval - direction sought by appellants for two further "without prejudice" meetings of parties, lawyers and their planning and other experts refused - one such meeting had already been directed by the Court and occurred - Council implacably opposed to the development in its location, even if scaled back.

HIS HONOUR:  This is a directions hearing in a developer's appeal against the Council's deemed refusal of an application to extend the currency period in respect of a development approval which has been given some time ago for the establishment of what is called a direct factory outlet in the Beenleigh area but not in a location designated in Council's planning scheme for development of that kind.

The issue argued this morning has been whether the Court should include in the order provision that "the parties meet in person on a without prejudice basis by 20 October 2006 and again by 22 November 2006."  That replicates the terms of an order of Acting Chief Judge Skoien on the 17th of May 2006 requiring such a meeting "with a view to limiting or settling the issues in dispute" by 16 June 2006.  It is common ground that that meeting occurred and with some useful effect.

The roll up was considerable, including lawyers for the parties, planners and retail analysts, also a Councillor representing the Council, who happened not to be the one elected by the voters of the local area. 

Mr Quinn was present representing the developers.   They have some form of joint venture.  Mr Quinn is presumably the person most keenly interested in the currency period's being extended.  Understandably from his point of view it would be advantageous to have as many meetings as possible.  Meetings offer a prospect of him or his people talking the Council around or at least of getting a greater understanding of the Council's position with a view to helping him formulate changes to his own.

The Council, represented by Mr Everson, is totally opposed to further meetings.  Its attitude is that the development is simply in the wrong place; it is bent on doing what it can to ensure that it does not go ahead there.  Mr Everson says the Council's attitude is that no changes to the proposal, by reducing its size, for example, will alter its fixed attitude.  He said enough about the meeting that occurred to indicate that such a meeting involves considerable expenditure of time and resources and at a cost.

One such meeting having occurred already, I do not think it is appropriate for the court, against the implacable opposition of the local government, to order one further such meeting, let alone two.  So, that provision will be deleted from the draft order supplied by Mr Nelms.

This does not mean that the court would not encourage contacts between the appellants and the respondents with a view to refining issues and the like.  I am in no doubt that, on both sides, there is an appreciation that doing so can reduce the scope of and the costs involved in appeals in the court.

I make an order in terms of the initialled draft which incorporates directions acceptable to the Council.  That involves the deletion of clause 3 from Mr Nelms' draft and the reduction by one of all of the numbers which introduce the following paragraphs or subparagraphs.

‑‑‑‑‑