//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:tas/TASRMPAT/2009/82
appellant. Decision of Sorell Council varied as agreed by parties; permit conditions amended; each party to bear own costs unless costs application made within 14 days
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
This is a consent decision where the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal approved an agreement reached between ME Browning and Sorell Council at a conference. The Council's original decision was varied to allow development (a roof over a caravan and deck with setback relaxation) with modified conditions. The parties agreed to bear their own costs unless a costs application is made within 14 days. The Tribunal did not conduct a full hearing because the parties reached agreement under s 17 of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
CITATION: ME Browning v. Sorell Council [2009] TASRMPAT 82
TITLE OF TRIBUNAL: Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal
Miscellaneous Use - roof over caravan and deck - setback relaxation
1. As a result of a conference pursuant to Section 17 of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 held on the 21st April 2009 at Hobart, agreement was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision of the Appeal Tribunal and the terms of that agreement were reduced to writing and were signed by the parties and given to the Appeal Tribunal.
2. The Appeal Tribunal, being satisfied that a decision in the terms as agreed by the parties would be within the powers of the Appeal Tribunal and would be an appropriate decision, makes a decision accordingly without holding a hearing.
3. The decision of the Appeal Tribunal is that the decision of the Sorell Council (the 'Council') appealed against is varied as follows:
"1. The development shall generally be in accordance with the endorsed plans submitted on 20th February 2009.
2. By deleting condition 2 and substituting the following"
'2. That section from the edge of the road pavement to the property boundary built to a sealed standard.
3. The section of driveway within the property shall be constructed of cement stabilised compacted gravel to a distance of 10 metres from the edge of the carriageway to Council specifications.
3. The following advice applies to the permit:
•
This permit shall lapse at the expiration of two (2) years from the date on which it is granted if the development and use is not substantially commenced within that period.
•
This permit does not imply that any other approval required under any other by-law or legislation has been granted.
•
Separate building approval is required prior to commencement of the development.'
4. It is directed that the Council issue a permit incorporating the above amendments.
5. The Tribunal will entertain any application for an order for costs in this appeal, if made to the Tribunal in writing with supporting submissions within the next fourteen days. If requested the Tribunal will reconvene to hear any evidence in respect of any matter bearing on an order for costs.
6. In the absence of any such application for an order for costs the order of the Tribunal is that each party bear its own costs.
Decision of Sorell Council varied as agreed by parties; permit conditions amended; each party to bear own costs unless costs application made within 14 days