Developer Allen-Co Holdings tells Gympie council to hand over confidential documents

Gympie Regional Council has been asked to hand over a confidential document as its fight with a Gympie developer over ‘erroneous’ charges of almost $1 million continues through the courts

The devlopers behind a 61-lot Widgee subdivision have asked Gympie regional Council to turn over confidential documents and reports related to how it ccalculated a proposed $13,330 infrastructre charge as part of an appeal against the cost, a request the council has refused.

Gympie Regional Council has been asked to hand over a confidential meeting document to developers as a battle over “erroneous” infrastructure charges of almost $1 million continues though the Planning courts.

Solicitors for Allen-Co Holdings, the group behind a 61-lot subdivision at Widgee, have asked the council to disclose “all documents including studies, calculations and methodologies” which relate to how it arrived at the $13,330 figure it proposed to charge for each lot.

The two groups are engaged in a fight over how much the developers should be paying.

The council has proposed a charge of $866,490 for the entire development.

Allen-Co says it should be paying only half that, $7331.50 per lot, as the subdivision will not be using much of the infrastructure the council is charging for.

Lawyers for the council have defended their price, saying splitting up the fee as Allen-Co is proposing cannot be done under the council’s planning legislation.

A letter to the council, contained in an affidavit lodged with the court, revealed Allen-Co’s lawyer Jarrod Boyle asked the council to hand over a Proposed Infrastructure Charges Resolution tabled in-committee in November 2017.

The developers behind the 61-lot subdivision say the council’s proposed $866,490 infrastructure charge is almost double what it should be.

The item was discussed behind closed doors on confidentiality grounds.

They have requested a copy of the minutes for the item, along with reports, memorandums or documents by council officers about the matter, and any presentations or documents provided to councillors which briefed them on the matter before the meeting.

In response lawyers for the council said there was no order in the proceeding for disclosure, and any such requirement would still not permit “fishing expeditions” and would only relate to directly relevant documents.

“Your requests … extends well beyond matters in issue in the proceeding.”

They said the council could confirm “it does not have, in its possession or control, any documents that provide an answer to, or otherwise touch upon, (the documents asked for)”.

The resolution sought by Allen-Co’s lawyers was tabled and discussed behind closed doors at a November 2017 Gympie council meeting.

That same day Mr Boyle reiterated their position, saying it “is not clear (the documents listed in the council’s letter as unavailable) is a complete summary of what we have asked for”.

“It was clear from our request for disclosure that what our client seeks is the explanation or rationale behind the Council‘s apparent selection of $13,300 as a global charge – formed, we are told, without reference to any of the constituent networks that would constitute the basis for the charge.”

If the request for disclosure was not properly answered, they said, then they would seek orders “compelling that disclosure”.

If the council maintained it had no such documents, then it would seek orders the council provide evidence of that fact.

The matter continues.