Cardwell Shire Council v King Ranch Australia Pty Ltd [1984] HCA 39

High Court of Australia Gibbs CJ Mason, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ Cardwell Shire Council v King Ranch Australia Pty Ltd [1984] HCA 39

ORDER Appeal allowed; matter referred back to Local Government Court to consider whether the appellant's conditions are reasonably required by the subdivision. 25 June 1984 Gibbs CJ.

This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland which, by a majority, dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Local Government Court. The present respondent, King Ranch Australia Pty Ltd, the owner of land in the Shire of Cardwell in North Queensland, applied to the appellant, the Council of the Shire of Cardwell, for permission to subdivide the land into nineteen blocks of various sizes, aggregating about 600 hectares.

The council approved of the proposed subdivision subject to the four following conditions:

(a) An amount of $25,000 be contributed towards future costs involved in the Davidson Creek Bridge replacement.

(b) Provide an extension of the existing bitumen surfaced roadway on the Davidson Road to a point 100 metres past the turnoff to the second road. This road to be equal in width and standard to the standard at the last section of bitumen.

(c) The internal roads to provide a bitumen surfaced turnout to each extending 25 metres from the Davidson Road centre line and then extend as a gravel paved road of minimum width 4.3 metres pavement, 8 metres shoulder width and minimum gravel depth of 200 millimetres. Adequate stormwater drainage to be provided.

(d) The engineering plans of roads to be submitted and approved before acceptance of any guarantee or signing of the survey plan.

The respondent appealed to the Local Government Court seeking an order that the council approve of the application for subdivision free from any of the conditions. The Local Government Court, his Honour Judge Given, DCJ, allowed the appeal. He ordered that conditions (a) and (b) should be deleted, that condition (c) should be varied, and that condition (d) should remain, but relettered as condition (b).