Environment and planning – public notification –
where the respondent sought that the appellant's appeal be
struck out on the basis that the appellant had failed to comply
with the public notification requirements – whether the
description "ancillary facilities" was
Facts: This was an application brought by
Council to strike out the appeal on the basis that the appellant
had failed to comply with the public notification requirements of
the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).
The development application the subject of the appeal sought a
development permit for an Extractive Industry (up to 1,000,000t per
year) and "Ancillary Facilities", General Industry (Heavy
Vehicle Depot & Ancillary Motor Vehicle Workshop and Ancillary
Office Building) & Rural.
The "Ancillary Facilities" component of the
development application was intended to be workers'
accommodation for up to 30 staff.
The appeal was against Council's refusal of the workers'
accommodation component of the development application.
Council alleged that the description of the proposed development
on the signs erected on the subject land and in the newspaper
advertisement did not properly describe the proposed development
and proposed use of the land because it failed to properly explain
the "workers' accommodation" component.
There was no reference to the term "ancillary" in the
definition of Extractive Industry and there was no reference to the
term "ancillary facilities" in the use definitions of the
The appellant relied upon Zappala Family Co v Brisbane City
Council (2014) 201 LGERA 82 in submitting that the public
notification was adequate because it was entitled to choose an
innominate use to best categorise the workers' accommodation
component of the proposed development.
Decision: The Court held, in striking out the
The public notification failed to contain a description of the
contentious use which was sufficient to convey the workers'
accommodation component of the proposed development such that an
interested person would be put on notice and moved to search the
development application at the respondent's offices.
The appellant had failed to comply with the public notification
requirements of SPA and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain
The conduct of the appellant in failing both in the development
application and also in response to an information request to
candidly disclose the true nature and extent of the workers'
accommodation proposed as part of the development was such that
discretion should not be exercised.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Council announced planning policies to encourage more inner suburban retirement village and aged care development.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).