Council archive · source document
Attachment 7 - Statement to the Court · RAL20/0005
In the Planning and Environment Court No D30 of 2019
Held at Brisbane
Between: SARA MARIE TRITTON & Appellants
PETER JOHN CAMERON LOXTON
And: NOOSA COUNCIL Respondent
STATEMENT TO COURT
The parties make the following statement to the Court on the record:
1. Council’s view is that:
(a) The subject development application proposes “development” that has not
been properly applied for; namely, the application ought to have also
sought approval for an MCU– this gives rise to a “piecemeal” concern;
(b) The Appellants have proposed conditions to reflect “Option 1” for the
ROL and the Council accepts that the works contemplated by those
conditions would resolve the Council’s concerns for the ROL; but
(c) Until the “piecemeal” issue is resolved, Council cannot support an
approval of the ROL, including because the limited nature of the subject
application (ROL only) impedes, in the Council’s view, the ability to
formulate lawful conditions for all aspects of the development;
(d) If the Council’s “piecemeal” issue (including its contentions about
conditions as part of the piecemeal issue) is determined in the Appellants’
favour, the ROL can be conditioned to comply with assessment
benchmarks for the ROL.
2. The Appellants:
(a) Do not concede that the subject development application is “piecemeal”;
but
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 1 page
Page 2
(b) To allay Council’s concerns, are prepared to lodge a fresh development
application for a combined material change of use and reconfiguration of
lot;
(c) The Appellants’ proposal to lodge a fresh DA is without prejudice to the
Appellants’ rights – if desired by the Appellants in due course – to have
the current Appeal determined on the basis of resolution of the
“piecemeal” issue and then, if that issue is decided in the Appellants’
favour, determination of appropriate conditions of approval for the ROL
alone.
3. On the basis of the Appellants agreement to lodge the combined DA, the parties
agree that that:
(a) While the combined DA is progressing, the parties will negotiate
conditions of approval consistent with the works contemplated by Option
1 for the ROL;
(b) Those negotiated conditions could then be supplemented with any further
conditions that may be identified following the Council’s assessment of
the combined DA;
(c) This approach would appear to be a sensible method by which to resolve
the issues in dispute between the parties, rather than agitation of disputes,
and determination of disputes, at this time, in the current proceeding.
Used in these records
Attachment 7 - Statement to the Court.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 85 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.