Austech (Qld) Pty Ltd v Hervey Bay City Council [2006] QPEC 46

1 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 [2006] QPEC 046 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT JUDGE ROBIN QC P & E Appeal No 204 of 2006 AUSTECH (QLD) PTY LTD Appellant and HERVEY BAY CITY COUNCIL Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 05/04/2006 ORDER CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 s.4.1.47(2) - sole issue in developer's conditions appeal the reasonableness of the Council's transport infrastructure policy on which approval conditions requiring money contributions were based - development permitted to proceed, as outcome of the appeal would not be affected. WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings. -- 1 of 2 -- 05042006 T4/TMP8 M/T CMS39/2006 (Robin DCJ) 2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: The Court has made orders in terms of the initialled draft supplied by Ms Evans. The special feature which the interlocutory application raises is the Court's permitting the appellant pursuant to Section 4.1.47(2) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 to start its development in accordance with the decision notice of the Council dated 23rd of December 2005 on certain conditions. The only contentious issue in the appeal concerns condition 33 in the decision notice relating to contributions required of the appellant under the Council's transport infrastructure policy. It contends that that policy is unreasonable and the Court is told it is not alone among developers in the local government area in making that contention. The Council is content that the Court make such an order. For the moment it is not known in dollar terms what is at issue, as the policy which the appellant contends to be unreasonable simply encapsulates a formula which enables contributions to be worked out at the appropriate time. There has been no occasion to do it yet. It is clear the parties agree that the outcome of the appeal would not be affected if the development started before the appeal were decided and in the circumstances the Court should go along with that and make the order. ----- -- 2 of 2 --