Ogle v Pine Rivers Shire Council

[2004] QPEC 91

[2004] QPEC 091

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

Appeal No 1313 of 2003

DONALD GORDON OGLE	Appellant
and
PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL	Respondent

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND                  Co-Respondent

and

CLIFFORD ALLEN WILLMETT               Co-Respondent by Election

and

RP & PA OLSON   Co-Respondent by
   Election

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/12/2004

ORDER

CATCHWORDS:  The Planning and Environment Court ought not to decline to make orders permitting a new registered proprietor of a development site to appeal the refusal of a development application based on the original applicant's contention that commercial considerations might point to the desirability  
of common cause being made with him in his existing appeal.

HIS HONOUR:  The issue for the Court is whether there is some

way in which Tendiris, which has become the owner of the

relevant land and has the registered title, is entitled to

prosecute the development application in the Court.  For

reasons I published the parties on the 10th of November,

that involves an undesirably complex procedure of duplicating

the existing appeal of Mr Ogle by a new one of Tendiris.  Mr

Ogle has eloquently presented his view there is no commercial

justification for the approach of Tendiris.  It and its

advisors obviously take a different view.

It may well be that if time is lost because of the institution of a new appeal, some new regional development restrictions may have an impact which is unwelcome to Tendiris, as Mr Ogle says.

The Court ought to proceed on the basis that it is capable of

making its own decisions.

I am unaware of any basis on which the Court may refuse

Tendiris relief to which it appears to be entitled, because

(if it were the case) the Court thought it was commercially

difficult to justify. 

The Court will make an order in terms of the draft handed up

by Mr Houston today.  He has informed the Court that when the

appeal is instituted (out of time when tested against the

ordinary time limits) it is proposed to serve the chief

executive and also all objectors so that they will have the

same right to be heard in the forthcoming Tendiris appeal as

they do in Mr Ogle's existing appeal.

It's much too early to contemplate consolidating the appeals

or anything of that kind.

Order as per initialled draft.

-----