Esteedog Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Maroochy & Ors [1992] QPEC 33

) ) ) ) IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT HELD AT BRISBANE QUEENSLAND Appeal No. 186 of 1989 BETWEEN: ESTEEDOG P'l'Y LTD Appellant AND: COUNCIL OF THE SHIRE OF MAROOCHY & ORS. Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - QUIRK o.c.J. Delivered the I '8 ~ day of June 1992 In this matter I have to deal with an application by the successful appellant for an order for costs against the respondent planning authority. The application was supported by lengthy written submissions which were responded to also by way of written submissions. The appeal was a lengthy and complex one; the issues being numerous and in some cases difficult. Important questions in • the area of amenity and public health were raised. It is not easy to reconcile the submissions made to me on this application with what occurred on the bearing of the appeal. If it is being suggested that this was a case where a respondent planning authority made a decision which conflicted with the advice of its expert consultants, this is not consistent with my understanding of the evidence particularly in relation to the matters of major importance namely amenity and public health. It is also to be noted that -- 1 of 2 -- 2 the proposed arrangements for water supply, sewerage and effluent disposal were not finalized until shortly before the hearing. The case presented by the respondent planning authority was amply supported by evidence from experts appropriately qualified. Due deference to their considerations of the matter and the opinions which they expressed was certainly intended if not made clear by the written reasons for judgment. What appears to be have been the major basis of the appellant's submissions to me appears to involve the fundamental misapprehension of the real nature of an appeal to this Court which is, as should be well known, a hearing on the evidence called by the parties during the appeal and not a review of what occurred before the Council when its decision was made. It is on the manner in which the Council decided the application that the submissions seemed to focus. The suggestion appears to be that the applicant was not given an adequate opportunity to argue or explain its case before the • Council. The matter was one of considerable public interest and the level of participation by residents of the area was high. In my view the appeal was carefully and competently presented and argued by all involved. I am not satisfied that it is a case where any order for costs is called for. The application is refused. -- 2 of 2 --