Mr. M.Lynch made submissions on behalf of the Tasmanian Conservation Trust.

This was an appeal pursuant to Section 61(4) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act1993 against the decision of the Brighton Council to grant approval for the subdivision of land at Boyer Road, Dromedary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the basis that whilst accepting the arguments

advanced by the appellant they were not of sufficient weight to constitute a "compelling reason" to set aside the Council's decision where the proposal complies with both the qualitative and quantative provisions of the Interim Order.

Mr Peacock submitted that the Conservation Trust's appeal against the Council's decision to approve his client's subdivision was frivolous and imposed an unnecessary expense on his client. He further submitted that the issues raised were policy issues concerning subdivisions in general within the Brighton Municipality and in his opinion the Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to discuss these issues.

Mr Peacock also submitted that the Trust appears to be appealing against subdivision approvals given by a number of Councils in an effort to pressure Councils to review their planning schemes.

Mr Lynch submitted that it was not accepted that the Trust's appeal was frivolous nor did it impose an unnecessary expense on the developer. He further submitted that in the decision the Tribunal noted that the grounds of the appeal related to a relatively modest botanical and faunal survey to be undertaken to determine if any species of conservation significance in Tasmania exists on the site.

Mr Lynch believed that the grounds of appeal were firmly based on the first two objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania, namely:

•

to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;

•

to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water.

Section 28 of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 requires the tribunal to make such orders for costs of an appeal as it thinks fit and in making such orders it must take into account:

•

whether a party has raised frivolous or vexatious issues at the hearing;

•

whether any party has unnecessarily or unreasonably prolonged the hearing or increased the costs of it; and

•

the capacity of the parties to meet an order for costs.

In it's decision the Tribunal found that whilst accepting the appellants arguments they were not of sufficient weight to constitute a "compelling reason" to set aside the Council's decision where the proposal complies with both the qualitative and quantative provisions of the Interim Order.

It is the opinion of the Tribunal that the appeal by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust raised matters of genuine town planning principle.

The Tribunal does not endorse the suggestion that the Trust is appealing against a number of subdivision approvals in an effort to pressure Councils to review their planning schemes - no evidence was before the Tribunal to suggest that this was the case.

There were no matters in relation to the appeal which the Tribunal considered to be frivolous or vexatious or that unnecessarily or unreasonably prolonged the hearing or increased the costs of same particularly as the appeal was heard in conjunction with an appeal by the developer against conditions of approval imposed by the Council.

Having considered the submissions it is the opinion of the Tribunal that the appropriate order for costs is an order that each party pay its own costs.