Mr John Carey, solicitor of the firm of Maddock Lonie & Chisholm, solicitors, appeared for the Responsible Authority.

Ms Susan Brennan, barrister, appeared on the instructions of the firm of Katsis, Purcell & Anthony for the Requestors.

Ms Janet Popko appeared for the Respondent South Eastern BMX Club Inc.

Request under s.87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) for amendment of a permit.

Amendments to certain conditions in Planning Permit No. 2327A issued on the 10 November 1981 allowing a BMX bicycle racing track.

1. These matters were before me on the 1 November 1999. By consent they were adjourned to a date to be fixed. This was on the basis that any party could apply for the matter to be re-listed for hearing or for a directions hearing by applying in writing to the Registrar.

2. The situation was reviewed after some weeks and correspondence dated

13 January 2000 was sent to the representatives of the parties seeking advice as to whether the proceedings could be finalised or whether a hearing was required.

3. On the 21 January 2000 a reply was received from the solicitors acting on behalf of the Requestors stating that the parties were negotiating and requesting the matters to be held in abeyance pending the conclusion of such negotiations.

4. On the 28 March 2000 correspondence was sent from the Registrar's office inquiring as to the current status of the Requests and whether they could be finalised.

5. A reply dated 10 April 2000 was received from the solicitors for the Requestors saying that they were seeking instructions and promising to contact the Registrar's office.

6. Again, on the 7 June 2000 correspondence was sent to the parties seeking a reply and indicating that if no reply was received within 14 days consideration would be given as to whether the proceedings should be dismissed.

7. Yet another reply from the Requestors' solicitors dated 22 June 2000 sought a further delay. It referred to an anxiety "to explore potential settlement positions" and asking for a further two weeks to negotiate a final resolution.

8. On the 7 August 2000 a letter was sent from the Registrar's office referring to the previous correspondence of the 22 June 2000 requesting a further two weeks and noting that two months had elapsed with nothing further being heard. The letter went on to warn:-

If no reply as to the future conduct of this matter is received by the Tribunal in writing within 10 days consideration will be given to dismissing this matter without further notice.

Although the above quoted sentence refers to "this matter", the letter nevertheless refers to both of these Request proceedings by number.

9. No further reply has been received. The position is becoming farcical. The Tribunal has not received the courtesy of a reply. In the circumstances I consider it appropriate to strike out these applications for want of prosecution pursuant to s 76(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.