CEE Jay Investments Pty Ltd v Stanthrope Shire Council & Ors [2005] QPEC 63

1 [2005] QPEC 063 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT JUDGE ROBIN QC No 4683 of 2004 CEE JAY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Appellant and STANTHORPE SHIRE COUNCIL and AMANDA LANE and MICHAEL LANE and STATE OF QUEENSLAND Respondent Co-Respondent Co-Respondent Co-Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 20/07/2005 ORDER CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.5A - appeal allowed to proceed notwithstanding that certification of advertising of development application was premature in being given prior to the end of the statutory notification stage - evidence showed that advertisements had remained in place for the full time required. 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 -- 20072005 T03/MLG14 M/T CMS 80/2005 (Robin DCJ) 2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: The Court will make an order in terms of the initialled draft which establishes a schedule for further steps in the appeal towards the hearing of it. There are two special features: one concerns late service on the State Government, which is not productive of any difficulty, as evidenced by the attendance of its representative; the other matter is an indulgence under section 4.1.5A of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, related to advertising. The problem is that after appropriate advertising had been instituted the gentleman responsible produced the customary documentation to establish that prematurely. In other words, he did not wait until the requisite period had passed throughout which advertisement of the development application was required to remain extant. There is no contest regarding the appellant's assertion that the advertising did remain in place for the requisite period, and no suggestion from the Council or any other quarter that any person's right to consider the proposal and make submission was affected. While it might have been open to the appellant to make a further certification in respect of public notification, that has not been done. It may be regarded as unnecessary in the circumstances. ... ----- -- 2 of 2 --