Court Judgement 01032021 Cases - Appeal 20-034 · 132010.105.01

17.   By email dated 11 December 2020, the Tribunal’s Registrar made the following further
      directions to the Appellant and the Respondent, pursuant to section 250 of the PA
      (Further Directions):

      “1. That the Noosa Shire Council provide a written submission to the Registry by 5:00pm
          on 24 December 2020 providing the Council’s response to the Appellant’s
          submissions dated 9 December 2020.”

18.   By email dated 18 December 2020, Ms Coyle provided the Respondent’s written
      submission in response to the Further Directions (Respondent’s Further Jurisdiction
      Submissions).

19.   By email dated 22 December 2020, Mr Grehan provided further written submissions on
      behalf of the Appellant in response to the Respondent’s further submissions (Appellant’s
      Further Jurisdiction Submissions).

20.   The Tribunal considered the parties’ written submissions and by email dated 17 February
      2021, the Tribunal’s Registrar provided the following decision of the Tribunal to the
      parties:

      “The Tribunal has carefully considered the arguments of the Council directed to the
      jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is not persuaded that there is any jurisdictional impediment
      to its proceeding with the appeal. The Tribunal accordingly proposes to proceed to a
      hearing.”

21.   The hearing of the appeal was conducted at the subject site by the Tribunal on 15 March
      2021.

22.   At the hearing, the parties undertook to each take some further actions to attempt a
      resolution of the issues in dispute.

23.   By email dated 17 March 2021, the Tribunal’s Registrar made the following directions to
      the Appellant and the Respondent, pursuant to section 250 of the PA (Final Directions):

      “Can the Council confirm its willingness to provide a written response to new detailed
      information that seeks to utilise construction materials compliant with Bushfire Attack
      Level BAL-40 or higher, within the 10.0 metre FPZ.

      Can the Council also indicate an acceptable area for such an intrusion into the FPZ for
      the installation of a patio awning and a shed, to be identified as a percentage of the FPZ
      that is included in the area of the subject site.

      The response from Council should be provided to the Registrar, no later than 4pm on the
      26 March 2021.

      The Tribunal will make further orders as necessary after the completion of these
      directions by the Council.”

24.   The Respondent provided the following response to the Final Directions by email dated
      24 March 2021 from Mr Patrick Murphy of the Respondent to the Tribunal’s Registrar
      (summarised as follows) (Respondent’s Final Submissions):

       (a)     Only a flyover roof was able to be supported in the FPZ if the encroachment was
               minor and built to AS3959. A 1 metre intrusion associated with the horizontal
               component of the new patio was considered minor if the posts and other structures
               were located outside of the FPZ, with only the overhang located within the FPZ.

       (b)     An intrusion based on a volumetric measure was not supported.




                                                                                                 -4-