Connolly v Brisbane City Council & Defence Housing Authority; Belperio & Douglas v Brisbane City Council & Defence Housing Authority; DTS Group & Belperio v Brisbane City Council [2004] QPEC 69

1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT [2004] QPEC 069 JUDGE ROBIN QC P & E Appeal No BD3369 of 2004 TIMOTHY CONNOLLY and DIANNE CONNOLLY Appellants and BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL Respondent and DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY Co-respondent P & E Appeal No BD3428 of 2004 GEORGE AND MARIA BELPERIO First Appellants and ALEX AND KAREN DOUGLAS Second Appellants and BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL Respondent and DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY Co-Respondent P & E Appeal No BD3429 of 2004 DTS GROUP and GEORGE AND MARIA BELPERIO Appellants and BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 15/10/2004 WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. s 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. Thi -- 1 of 5 -- 15102004 T10/LM18 M/T CMS116/2004 (Robin DCJ) 2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 ORDER CATCHWORDS: Two adverse submitter appeals ordered to be heard together with appeal brought by one of the adverse submitters against Council refusal of their separate development application - that application refused on basis of lack of integration with the proposed need network in the co- respondent's proposal - another adverse submitter qualified as a planner authorised to attend "conclave" of experts as his own planner. HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. It is an unusual situation in which there are well-advanced adverse submitter appeals in respect of a development approval obtained by the Defence Housing Authority. There is a slightly less well-advanced subsequent appeal by one of the adverse submitters in respect of the Council's refusal of its development application which is, as I understand, based in -- 2 of 5 -- 15102004 T10/LM18 M/T CMS116/2004 (Robin DCJ) 3 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 part on unsatisfactory integration of the proposal with traffic arrangements in the design of the Defence Housing Authority project. There are some other issues linking the two matters including the reliance which the other developer apparently seeks to place on a park provision in the DHA project rather than provide any park of its own. There may, of course, be a financial contribution in lieu. There are other issues to do with the development of smaller allotments in the DHA proposal, which is apparently intended to provide housing for defence personnel. Convenient as it may be for the DHA to have its matters determined first, it seems to me the system would bring reproach upon itself if it insisted on separate determination of the matters. It may or may not become appropriate that there be some redesign of the proposed road systems in respect of both projects. Mr Favell has referred me to Ugarin Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2004] QPEC 001 as an example of a rational collection of disparate appeals related in broadly similar ways. The expectations of the DHA of obtaining dates in the January sittings for hearing of the appeals involving it are -- 3 of 5 -- 15102004 T10/LM18 M/T CMS116/2004 (Robin DCJ) 4 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 frustrated because of the 2005 calendar's not having been prepared. There is no time left in the January sittings as things stand. That may change. One contentious issue left over concerns whether the clients of Mr Favell ought to pay the DHA's costs in respect of a mention of the appeal on the 13th of October 2004 which went nowhere and partly because of the late provision of material to Mr Lyons, who was entitled to time to think about it. His client resisted the proposition there ought to be an adjournment until today. Mr Favell's client had no possibility of getting the matters dealt with together on the 13th of October because the list had been ruled off. The costs issue can be determined on a later occasion if it remains alive then. So, orders per initialled draft - which has the beneficial effect of bringing the appeals together and adding the DHA as a party in the proceeding in which it is not presently one; this Mr Lyons sought rather than some more limited order that might have given him authority to test evidence in that other appeal. Another unusual feature is that in the Connollys' appeal Mr Connolly, being a town planner, has been authorised to attend the conclave of experts to take place on or before the 1st of December 2004 on the basis that he will be his own expert and that no other expert planner would be engaged by the appellants in that appeal. -- 4 of 5 -- 15102004 T10/LM18 M/T CMS116/2004 (Robin DCJ) 5 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 ----- -- 5 of 5 --