Resource and Planning – Application to extend time to appeal against
building order
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
Resource and Planning – Application to extend time to appeal againstbuilding order
Judgment (1 paragraphs)
[1]
The application states that a friend of the appellant lives on the property and has no immediately available alternative accommodation. The appeal form was filed with a letter from the occupant confirming, albeit without detail, that that person was having difficulty in finding alternative accommodation.
An appeal of a building order is heard de novo: Robinson v Northern Midlands Council (No.2)[2023] TASCAT 138 at [39]. As explained in that case at [40], the issue for the Tribunal to consider is whether the Tribunal reaches the level of satisfaction required for the issue of a building notice, given that a building order is to issue if a building notice has not been complied with.
The powers of the Tribunal on determining an appeal are set out in s 78(1) of the TASCAT Act and include varying the decision that is being reviewed. That discretion would extend to varying the time for compliance with the order. However, it is apparent that the appellant does not challenge the issue of the building order and it is likely, if not inevitable, that on determination of the appeal the building order would be affirmed. The time for compliance with the order is a matter which might reasonably be negotiated between the Council and the appellant and would be informed by whether there are exigent circumstances, for example relating to safety which might be implied by the requirements of the order concerning cordoning off access to the building, including stairs. The appellant has not addressed this or provided any particulars of engagement with the Council in respect to the time for compliance.
Further, the undefined expansion of time sought by the appellant for compliance with the building order does not arise in connection with building works or any matter relevant under the Building Act. It arises in connection with the convenience of the occupant. While the circumstances of the occupant, who is not at fault in any way in this matter, is deserving of sympathy it is not sufficient to warrant an exercise of the discretion to extend time.
The application to extend time is refused.
Accordingly:
The appeal is dismissed.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Griggs
Respondent/Defendant:
Kingborough Council [2025] TASCAT 229
Legislation Cited (8)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020
Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Consequential Amendments) Act 2021
Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2021
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020
Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Consequential Amendments) Act 2021
Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2021
Cases Cited (8)
Griggs v Kingborough Council [2025] TASCAT 229 (16 December 2025)