Tennent v Brisbane City Council

[2011] QPEC 11

[2011] QPEC 11

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 3086 of 2008

ROSEMARY TENNENT & ORS	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL & ANOR	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/02/2011

..DAY 1

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.50(2)

Where respondent developer consents to a submitter appeal being allowed and the development application being refused, it is unnecessary for compliance with public notification requirements to be established

HIS HONOUR:  Order as per initialled draft.  That order allows an appeal by submitters and orders that the co-respondent's development application be refused.

Although the order recites to the Court's satisfaction that the Integrated Planning Act provisions regarding service of notice of appeal have been complied with, it does not contain the accompanying declaration in respect of satisfaction that public notification of the co-respondent's development application was duly carried out.

Further to a similar matter yesterday, Blackburne v Brisbane City Council, 1282 of 2010, I confirm my approach, if not that of the Court, as being that where a developer is no longer wishing to pursue a development application, there is no justification for requiring it to go to the trouble and expense of demonstrating compliance with the public notification requirements or, indeed, doing anything else much in the appeal.

The arrangements respecting onus of proof of a case in the appeal are consistent with the approach taken in the similar matter yesterday. It is for the co-respondent developer to establish that the development application ought to succeed and that the appeal ought to be refused: see section 4.1.50(2). Where it suits the developer's requirements to let things go by default, the Court ought to be content with that.

‑‑‑‑‑