AJW Developments Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council [2005] QPEC 90

1 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. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT [2005] QPEC 090 JUDGE ROBIN QC P & E Appeal No 4050 of 2004 AJW DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD Appellant and REDLAND SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent and BURNEY AND OTHERS Co-Respondents by Election BRISBANE ..DATE 07/09/2005 ORDER CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 3.5.15, s 4.1.5A, s 4.1.41 - Court declares satisfaction regarding compliance by a developer appellant with requirement of notice to adverse submitters - such notices arguably late, because of Council's failure to comply with IPA requirements to advise addresses of submitters in its decision notice - all submitters had been notified, most electing to correspond. -- 1 of 3 -- 07092005 T3/LM18 M/T CMS99/2005 (Robin DCJ) 2 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which has been handed up. It contains directions calculated to produce a hearing of the appeal in the December pool. It contains the standard declarations by the Court of compliance with the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and a particular declaration of satisfaction of compliance with the provisions of section 4.1.41 of the Act. That section requires that an appellant under Division 8 must give written notice of the appeal to various parties including submitters; by subsection (2) that notice has to be given within 10 business days after the appeal is started. Of 31 potential co-respondents 22 have elected to be parties and are represented by Mr Keliher. There is no doubt that the other nine were aware of their having a similar opportunity. Mr Keliher raises no point about the lateness of the notice that went to his clients. The difficulty arose because of the Council's decision notice. Under section 3.5.15(2)(i) it was required to state "whether or not there were any properly made submissions about the application and for each properly made submission the name and address of the principal submitter." The explanation may lie in the number of submitters - but the Council failed to include the details required. It was only after some pressure from the appellant - by which time -- 2 of 3 -- 07092005 T3/LM18 M/T CMS99/2005 (Robin DCJ) 3 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 technically it was too late - that the details were given to someone in the appellant's camp. The first attempt at notifying the submitters was ineffective but within a few days a second effective attempt was made which, as it happens, fell well within the 10 business days allowed for notification of submitters - assuming the time runs from the giving of a decision notice conforming with the Act. Ms King has suggested that time did not commence to run against her client until there was a decision notice complying fully with the requirements of the section 3.5.15. That may well be so. Whether it is or not, having regard to s 4.1.5A the appeal should obviously be allowed to proceed and it is appropriate that the declarations included in the draft order be there. ----- -- 3 of 3 --