Background
Arbus Pottsville Pty Limited brought two Class 1 appeals against Tweed Shire Council’s deemed refusals of development applications for caravan parks at Cudgera Creek. The 2025 appeal concerned a proposed 279-site caravan park at 1183 Cudgera Creek Road. The later 2026 appeal concerned a smaller caravan park proposal at 1024 and 1183 Cudgera Creek Road.
Arbus sought leave to amend the 2026 appeal to add an application for Roads Act approval for works in the Cudgera Creek Road intersection. It also sought to have the two appeals run concurrently, vacate the 1–12 October 2026 hearing dates in the 2025 appeal, and timetable a later application to amend that appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Froh granted leave to amend the 2026 Class 1 application, an order the Council did not oppose. Because the amendment was more than minor, Arbus was ordered to pay the Council’s costs thrown away by it, as agreed or assessed.
The Court otherwise dismissed both motions. It declined to consolidate the appeals or vacate the imminent hearing dates for the 2025 appeal, finding that the applicant’s claimed lack of preparedness and its need for further expert work concerned matters known well before the motion. The later 2026 appeal and possible resolution of a road-reserve jurisdictional issue did not justify disturbing the existing hearing. Arbus was also ordered to pay the Council’s costs of the 3 September 2026 motion hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A consensual amendment to add a Roads Act approval request was permitted, but attracted thrown-away costs.
- Applicants in Class 1 development appeals are generally expected to commence proceedings ready for final assessment and hearing.
- A later related appeal and asserted expert unavailability will not necessarily justify consolidation or vacating fixed hearing dates.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Court’s overriding-purpose and case-management principles to development appeals. It reinforces that parties must act promptly where amendments or further evidence are required, particularly once hearing dates have been allocated.
For consent applicants, the ruling highlights the costs risk of late procedural applications and inconsistent representations about readiness for hearing.