Davidson & Anor v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2011] QPEC 9
1-1
[2011] QPEC 9
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Appeal No 2640 of 2010
GRAHAM PAUL DAVIDSON AND ANOTHER Appellants
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER Respondents
BRISBANE
..DATE 16/02/2011
..DAY 1
ORDER
CATCHWORDS
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 s 820
Non-compliance with public notification requirements excused -
developer applicants placed signs on all 3 named streets to
which there was frontage, but overlooked a 2.7 metre frontage
to the construction site of the Nundah Bypass Tunnel
-- 1 of 3 --
1-2 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order to the effect that the
non-compliance with the requirements of the Integrated
Planning Act-----
...
HIS HONOUR: -----1997 with respect to public notification of
the development application that is the subject of these
proceedings referred to in the affidavit of Mr John Panaridis
filed herein be excused under section 820 of the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009.
The appellants have a property in Bage Street surrounded on
three sides by the premises of Mary MacKillop College. They
were adverse submitters, disappointed by the Council's
favourable response to a development application lodged by the
College and appealed against it.
They have filed a notice of discontinuance on the 18th of
January 2011 pursuant to rule 15 of the Planning and
Environment Court rules 2010. That rule gives any active
party served with a copy of the notice 14 days within which to
make an application to the Court which might interfere with an
appellant desirous of discontinuing immediately achieving that
outcome.
Within the time allowed the co-respondent College filed an
application seeking the Court's assistance in respect of a
non-compliance with public notification, which apparently was
-- 2 of 3 --
1-3 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
not noticed earlier, but was picked up by the Council during
preparation of the appeal. That non-compliance was the
failure to place a notice on a road frontage of the
development site. Signs were placed in Bage Street, in
Buckland Road which forms the northern part of the College
premises and in Duncan Street, which divides the northern part
of the campus from the southern one. What was overlooked was
that in association with roadworks to do with the Nundah
bypass tunnel land had been acquired by the relevant
authority, which for some-----
...
HIS HONOUR: -----2.733 metres produces a boundary with the
College's premises. The Court is informed that a high hedge
on the boundary would prevent anyone from seeing a sign placed
on the site there. Further, it seems inevitable that no one
would have been proceeding in that location in any event,
given the state of roadworks to be achieved there. As
Mr O'Brien said, it's a very clear case for the Court to
excuse that non-compliance which it seems couldn't have had
any possible consequences for anyone.
Order as per initialled draft.
-----
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QPEC/2011/009