Civil Dimensions Pty Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council [2006] QPEC 29

1 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 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. [2006] QPEC 029 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT JUDGE ROBIN QC BD3902 of 2005 CIVIL DIMENSIONS PTY LTD Appellant and CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 17/03/2006 ORDER CATCHWORDS: Developer's appeal against deemed refusal - directions on eve of callover calculated to facilitate early hearing of appeal notwithstanding appellant's seeking to relocate a detention basin to avoid contest with the Minister for Local Government and Town Planning who had concerns about original location - undesirable to describe a request for particulars by the technical expression "information request" -- 1 of 4 -- 17032006 T4/JLP31 M/T 30/2006 (Robin DCJ) 2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: I make an order in terms of the initialled draft which complicates arrangements established by previous directions of the Court to see the matter included in the callover for next Monday which will allocate hearing dates for the weeks commencing 3rd of April to commencing 1st of May. The appellant is seeking to change its application. The Court's understanding is that the change involves relocation of a substantial detention basin from the location hitherto proposed which has caused concern to the Minister for Local Government and Planning. She chose to become involved in the appeal, which is against a deemed refusal for a permit for operational works, because the detention basin had been proposed to be located across the route of a foreshadowed haulage route. The developer is now seeking to avoid a contest with the Minister in that regard by the relocation. The Court has so conducted itself as to give the appellant some expectation of a hearing in the April pool. I am reluctant, at this stage, to put an end to that expectation, which is what Mr Kevin for the Council says ought, realistically, to be done. It remains to be seen whether the callover situation will so develop that a date later in the Sittings is available for hearing of this appeal which seems necessary if those sittings are to be availed of. What the Court has had to resolve is the time which ought to be given to the appellant's consultants to respond to what's been called an "information -- 2 of 4 -- 17032006 T4/JLP31 M/T 30/2006 (Robin DCJ) 3 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 request" from the Council. I have gone most of the way towards allowing the Council the 15 business days requested rather than the 10 days offered cutting it by one day to permit a mention of the matter on the 12th of April 2006. If that date is not used, the parties will have to wait another week for the next mention. I am reluctant for that time to be lost. The draft order originally proposed provided that the Council might deliver an "information request" by 4 p.m. today. That use of a term of art adopted in the IPA caused me some concern since there might be a question of the Court's jurisdiction to make an order about an information request at this late stage. There are possible implications for the IPA timetable as well which might require a stage or stages to be repeated. That is certainly not the parties' intention. To the extent that they can, I am satisfied they are all working towards an early determination. It is convenient to retain the expression "information request" but as a defined term for purposes of the order which I now read into the record, given that the extent of the amendments makes it difficult to interpret the draft I have initialled. It is ordered that: (1) McPhail Road Proprietary Limited be substituted as appellant for Civil Dimensions Proprietary Limited; -- 3 of 4 -- 17032006 T4/JLP31 M/T 30/2006 (Robin DCJ) 4 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 (2) The respondent deliver any request for particulars ("information request") in respect of the amended proposal contained in Cardno's letter and attachments dated 28 February 2006 by 4 p.m. on 17 March 2006; (3) The co-respondent deliver a statement of any remaining issues and particulars of any issues in the appeal by 4 p.m. on 21 March 2006; (4) Within 14 business days of the date of the appellant's consultants providing a proper response to the respondent's information request (to the extent that the request is reasonable), the respondent shall complete its assessment of the amended proposal and give notice in writing to the appellant of its acceptance or rejection of the amended proposal and, if it rejects the amended proposal, it shall give reasons for that rejection; (5) The appeal be adjourned for mention to 9.15 a.m. on 12 April 2006; (6) The parties have liberty to apply upon the giving of two days' written notice by each active party. Orders as per draft. ----- -- 4 of 4 --