10/0662 - Operational Works [As Published] · 142010.662

2009/1689

 

 

 

 

Raginal Council

Sunshine Coast Appeal Rights

INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997 & 1998 REGULA TION

 

Tha following is an extract from the Integrated
Planning Act (Chapter 4).

Division 8 - Appeals to court relating to
development applications

Appeals by applicants

4.1.27.(1) An applicant for a development application
may appeal to the court against any of the foilowing-

{a) the refusal, or the refusal in Part, of a development
application:

{b) a matter stated in a Gevelopment approval,
including any — condition applying to the
development, and the Identification of a code
under section 3.1.6;

{C) the decision to give a preliminary approval when a
development permit was applied for;

(d) the length of a relevant perlod;

(e) a deemed refusal,

(2) An appeal under subsection (1)(a) to (d) must
be started within 20 business days (the “applicant's
appeal period") afler the day the decision notice or
negotlated decision notice Is given to the applicant.

(3) An appeal under subsection (1)(e) may be
slarted at any time after the last day a decision on the
matter should have been made.

Appeals by submitters

4,1.28,(1) A submitter for a development application
may appeal to the court aboul-

(a) the giving of a development approval, including
any conditions (or lack of conditions) or other
provisions of the approval: or

(b) the length of a relevant period for the approval

(2) The appeal must be started within 20 business
days (Ihe “submitters appeal period") after the day
ihe decision notice or negotiated decision natice is
given to the submitier.

(3) If @ person withdraws a submission before the
application Is decided, the person may not appeai the
decision,

(4) If an application involves both impact
assessment and code assessment. appeal rights for
submitters are available only for the part of the
application involving impact assessment.

a. eel

‘ Section 3.1.6 {Preliminary approval may override
local planning Instrument)

(5) If an application is processed under section
6.1.28(2), appeal rights for submitters for the
application are available only for the aspects of the
development that would have tequired public
notification under the repealed Act.

{6} If an application involves assessment against a
concurrence agency code, appeal rights for submitters
for the application are not available against the part of
the approval that represents the concurrence agency's
response for the code,

Appeals by advice agency submitters

4.1.29.(1) An advice agency may, within the limits of
Its jurisdiction, appeal to the court about the giving of a
development approval for a development application

(a) the development application involves Impact
assessment: and

(b) the advice agency told the applicant and the
assessmenl manager to treat its response to the
application as a submission for an appeal,

(2) The appeal musi be started within 20 business
days after the day the decision notice or negotiated
decision notice Is given to the advice agency as a
submitter.

Appeals for matters arising after approval given
(co-respondents)

4.1.30.(1) For a development approval given for a
development application, a person to whom any of the
following notices have been given may appeal to the
court against the decision in the notice-

(a) a notice giving a decision on a request for
extension of the relevant period for an approval:

(b) @ notice giving a decision on a request to make a
minor change to an approval,

(2) The appeal must be started within 20 business
days after the day the notice of the decision is given to
the person,

{3) Subsection (1a) does not apply if the
approval resulted from a development application
(superseded planning scheme) thal was assessed as
if it were an application under a superseded planning
scheme.

(4) Also, a person who has made a request
mentioned In subsection (1) may appeal to the court
against a deemed refusal of the request.

(5) An appeal under subsection (4) may be started
at any time after the last day the decision on the
matter should have been made

Page 100/11