About the Appeal Court Case

In filing the case, the developers had to state the reasons for the appeal.  Those reasons were later characterised as being largely “bald assertions, unsupported by evidence”.   One such assertion was that “The proposed development would benefit the community in many ways….”.   This was certainly something that was at odds with the views of the majority of people in the community.

Co-respondents
Everyone who had registered a “properly made submission” during the council’s public consultation period for the original Development Application was notified of the appeal and had the right to join the court case.  Those choosing to support the developers could become co-appelants in the case and those choosing to support the council in defending its original decision would become co-respondents in the case.

The Arundel Hills Community Association recognised that the ability for each person to become a co-respondent represented an opportunity to do two things.  The first was to allow people to have their voices heard in court.  And the second was to show that the community definitely did not recognise the benefits that the developers claimed would result from their scheme.

Anyone wishing to register as a co-respondent needed to complete a form known as a Form 6 and submit that form at the court by a designated cut-off date, just 10 business days after the appeal was filed.  The Association contacted those who were eligible to become co-respondents advising on the registration process.  More importantly, the Association organised a pop-up event, at a committee member’s home, inviting people to attend so that they could be assisted in completing a Form 6, which the Association would file at court on the co-respondetnts’ behalf.

The response of the community exceeded even the wildest expectations in terms of the numbers who chose to register.  Nearly 700 forms were completed and copied as they had to be submitted in triplicate.  It was only when the forms were taken to the court that we discovered that each form also had to be submitted electronically as a text-searchable PDF, with each PDF file named to conform with the court rules.  The rush was then on to complete that activity in time, with one volunteer in particular practically pulling an all-nighter to get the job done.

With so many people being processed, despite the committee’s best efforts, it turned-out that some of those who submitted a form were not eligible to do so because they had not recorded a properly made submission during the council’s original public consultation period.  However, even after the ineligible co-respondents were removed, there are now 643 valid co-respondents on the case.  The Association, as an incorporated body, also joined the court case as a co-respondent.

To the best of our understanding, that number of co-respondents is unprecendented in any case the court has heard.

Agents for Co-respondents – Form 10
Each co-respondent has the right – and, to a certain extent, the obligation – to be in court for each hearing that occurs in the case.  Clearly it was not practical to expect that many people in court, so the judge requested that the Association should arrange for the co-respondents it had filed to be represented in court by agents.  The Chairman of the Association, Jason Young and one of the committee members, Glenn Pearson stepped forward to volunteer to act in that agent capacity.

This created another challenge for the association.  Every co-respondent needed to complete a Form 10 to register their agreement to work with an Agent.  Once again those had to be filed in triplicate with electronic copies.  At the time of writing, early September 2024, there are still 103 co-respondents who have not filed a Form 10.

If you have registered as a co-respondent and have not yet completed a Form 10, please contact the association at arundelhillsassociation@gmail.com to request a Form 10 to complete

See the Notice of Appeal lodged on behalf of the developers

We do not know yet exactly what is contained in the minor change.

In the court hearing itself, the judge directed a timetable of events for distribution and consideration of the minor change.  There are several steps involved, at the end of which the Council and the co-respondents can choose either to accept the minor change or to oppose it.  The next court hearing is set for 26th May 2025 at which the outcome of these steps will be dealt with.

Also in the March hearing, at the request of the lawyers for the developers, the judge directed that those co-respondents who have not attended court and who have not appointed an agent (by filling-in a Form 10) should be removed from the case.  We will be working to assist in this process, not least by offering co-respondents one last chance to register an Agent to act on their behalf.

See Jason’s video summary after the 14th March hearing