Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
WESTERN DIVISION
AT LAUTOKA
Judicial Review No. 06 Of 2012
BETWEEN :
THE DIRECTOR of the DEPARTMENT OF TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING 4 Gladstone Road,
Government Buildings, Suva
1ST RESPONDENT
:THE SECRETARY, NADROGA RURAL LOCAL AUTHORITY
2ND RESPONDENT
:FRANCIS COLIN KUMAR of Lot 95, Maui Bay West Road, Maui Bay, Fiji, Company Director.
3RD RESPONDENT
:MAUI BEACH VILLAS LIMITED C/o Aliz Pacific, Level 8, Dominion House, Suva.
4TH RESPONDENT
AND :
CRAIG DE LA MARE & EVETTE DE LA MARE of Lot 114 East Road, Maui Bay, Fiji.
APPLICANTS
Counsel Appearing: Applicants in Person
: Ms. Mary Motufaga-Lee for the 1st and 2nd Respondents
: Mr. S. Krishna for the 3rd and 4th Respondents
Date of Ruling: 27 February 2023
R U L I N G
INTRODUCTION
.. [falling] outside the municipal boundaries and town planning schemes of Sigatoka. The zoning of Maui Bay and any area outside of municipal boundaries and town planning schemes is determined by the designated use that has been approved to survey, while the development is bracketed i.e. Special Use (Villa) or Special Use (Hotel) or Special Use (Tourism Villa).
1. Tourism is a special zone as it does not fall under Commercial or Residential zone; it is
a designated zone, specifically for tourism.
THE DECISION WHICH THE DE LA MARES ARE AGGRIEVED ABOUT
..the outline application consented to on 7 October 2011 did have 4 bedrooms and this was reflected in the detailed drawings. However, additional conditions were imposed on 2 July 2012 in keeping with the SDGM which states,
“the maximum number of occupants at any one time on the tourism villa shall strictly be 6 persons”
“the consent excludes the bure on the pool deck. The pool bure shall be deleted from the plans prior to the issuance of building permit”
RESPONDENTS’ POSITION
This is to confirm that upon request of Maui Bay Estates, we carried out the above redefinition on the 18th June 2012.
The extent of the boundaries has been redefined and all boundary marks on the above lot have been redefined and are in correct positions as shown in the Survey Plan with the Surveyors Regulations and that it is correct as to survey.
Copies of the locality diagram and Survey Plan is attached for your information.
Yours faithfully
WOOD & JEPSEN CONSULTANTS
Sgd Pumale Reddy (Registered Surveyor)
....the height of the pool was overlooked when the detailed plans were considered, assessed and approved....... the pool lies within the 20 m while its shoulders lie outside the 10m building line setback.
.....that the wall is part of the pool development and does not lie within 10 m foreshore access reserve and building line setback.
...there is no requirement for Environment Management Plan (ËMP”) from Kumar, since EMP for entire Maui Bay Estate was prepared and approved by the Director of Environment. .....the approved outline application required Mr. Kumar to provide Operational Environment Management Plan (ÖEMP”) with the detailed plans, however the OEMP was not lodged with the detailed building plan. The first Respondent in keeping with the SDGM put a condition in the detailed plan that, “...an endorsed copy of the OEMP shall be submitted to Local Authority and DTCP prior to issuance of the completion and occupation certificate.
...in her letter “TR 5” Mr. Kumar was required to comply with an additional condition which states that, “no completion certificate, occupancy certificate nor hotel licence shall be issued prior to approval of the OEMP by the Director of Environment
...OEMP relates to tourism operation rather than building itself, the building can be constructed but no licence can be issued to carry out tourism operations unless approved OEMP is submitted thus the requirement for OEMP is not waived.
...the Director of Town and Country Planning in imposing the conditions of consent to develop Lot 1 on DP 9979 took into account the environment laws.
....wrote to the Nadroga Rural Local Authority (“NRLA”) on 22 June 2012 advising them to issue stop work order to Mr. Kumar until boundary peg is verified by a registered surveyor.
RE: Proposed Villa Development At Lot 1 DP234, MAUI BAY ESTATES, MAUI BAY, NADROGA BY MR. FRANCIS KUMAR
(first paragraph0
Your office is requested to instigate legal action by issuing a stop work order on the construction currently being carried out on the site. Whilst acknowledging that the application had been consented to and approvals given to facilitate issuance of building permit, the work shall cease with effective (sic) from today.
.......my officers ..had visited the site with your office, 2-3 weeks ago and noted works carried out close to the foreshore. In enquiring with Mr. Francis Kumar yesterday on boundary verification, it is deduced that whilst there may have been one done by a surveyor engaged by Maui Bay Estates, there is no boundary verification carried out to the knowledge of the Nadroga Rural Local Authority. The condition of consent is clear that:
All boundary pegs shall be verified by a Registered Surveyor prior to commencement of any work.
The Secretary, Vimal, in my tele-discussion with him yesterday (Talei/Vimal) stated there being no boundary verification done to their knowledge. The condition of consent is clear that the boundary pegs shall be verified by a Registered Surveyor prior to commencement of any work. In this regard, the Nadroga Rural Local Authority is directed to issue a stop-work order on the works currently being carried out on the site until the boundary pegs have been verified; a copy of which shall be issued to the local authority. Only then, can pegs be confirmed to indicate encroachment of development along the foreshore.
Mr. Kumar in response to my request for an audience with him has enquired as to purpose of the meeting. Our office is seeking the meeting with Mr. Kumar to discuss developments relating to his villa proposal and relaxation issues. Mr. Kumar has availed himself for next Wednesday 27/06/2012.
Queries have been made on the application of the Site Specific Guidelines for Maui Bay Estate. Your attention is drawn to the following:
(i) | The provisions and standards outlined form (sic) the Town Planning General Provision specifically for all the lands on the costal
side of Maui Bay Estate. Hence, the legal standard, hence regulation to specifically control development of Special Use (Tourism-Villas)
in Maui Bay, Nadroga. |
(ii) | The Site Specific Guidelines for Special Use (Tourism-Villas) are the conditions and requirements imposed in conjunction with the
Zoning of the coastal lands of Maui Bay Estate, Nadroga. |
(iii) | Any proposal for special use-tourism villa shall be subjected to the requirements and standards specified in the Site Specific Guidelines
for Special Use (Tourism-Villas) in Maui Bay Estates, Nadroga. |
(iv) | It is important that all new developments carried out thereafter 26/12/2009 strictly conform to the Site Specific Guidelines given
the state of the environment of Maui Bay. |
At this juncture, the Nadroga Rural Local Authority is advised that the Director shall not entertain any more tourism development proposals in Maui Bay until the conditions of the OEMP for those previously consented to is complied with i.e. the establishment of the Monitoring Committee, members of which shall be representatives of DOE, DTCP, Maui Bay Estates, residents representatives and operators representative.
[last closing paragraph]
Yours faithfully.
Sgd.
T. Rokotuibau
Director of Town and Country Planning
| is the SDGMB a scheme or is it merely a set of guidelines? |
| whether the DTCP is obliged to adhere strictly to the SDGMB? |
| regardless of whether the SDGMB is a scheme or is merely a set of guidelines, does the DTCP have a discretion to approve relaxations
from the scheme/guidelines? |
| assuming the DTCP does have a discretion to approve a relaxation from the scheme/guidelines, what is the correct procedure which he
must follow? |
| even if the SDGMB is merely a set of guidelines, is it capable of raising a legitimate expectation on the part of any lot owner in
the MBDE such as the De La Mares? |
MBVDL’S PRE-2009 & POST-2009 APPLICATIONS
11.07.06 | Colin Francis Kumar (“CFK”) purchased Lot 7 on CT 36183 on 11 July 2006. |
24.04.07 | CFK applies for DTCP approval to subdivide Lot 7 into two lots for Special Use Villa Development. According to DTCP Affidavit s/o 11.04.17,
CFK applied on 20.04.07 |
19.06.07 | DTCP forwarded copies of application to NRLA |
13.04.08 | application approved (according to CFK). According to DTCP Affidavit s/o 11/04/17, this was approved on 14.04.08. |
17.09.09 | Subdivision approved as to survey by DTCP as to subdivision of Lot 7 into two lots as Lots 1 and 2 on DP 9979 designated for Special
Use (Villa Development). Confirmed by DTCP Affidavit s/o 11.04.17. |
23.12.09 | DTCP approves SDGMB. DTCP Affidavit s/o 11.04.17 says SDGMB “came into force on 23.12.09”. |
29.12.09 | Rezoning of beachfront Lots from residential to Special Use Tourism Villas |
15.06.11 | Lodged an outline application to develop lots 1 and 2 on DP 9979 at NRLA |
02.09.11 | NRLA received letter from DTCP outlining proposal for amendments |
07.10.11 | NRLA consented to application |
12.12.11 | Detailed building plan lodged with DTCP |
22.03.12 | DTCP approves sub-division |
04.06.12 | DTCP approved building plan |
13.04.12 | Letter by NRLA to Kumar requesting that amendments be made to building plan |
22.06.12 | Letter by DTCP to NRLA recommending NRLA issue stop work order on |
26.06.12 | Letter by NRLA to Francis Colin Kumar attaching conditions and requiring Kumar to endorse the conditions of consent for the outline
villa development. Condition 4 notably requires Kumar to submit an OEMP Plan of the villa development to be submitted with the detailed
plans. |
__.06.12 | Letter by Wood & Jepsen To Whom It May Concern to say that “the boundaries have been defined and the boundary marks are
in the correct position as shown on the Survey Plan Lot 1 and 2 on DP 9979. |
01.03.16 | DTCP approves CFK’s rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 from Special Use (Villa Development) to Special Use (Tourism-Villa) in 2016. |
.....the SDGMB was created in 2009 as part of the conditions of rezoning of foreshore lots from residential to special use Villa Development. However, Mr. Kumar’s foreshore lot was already subdivided and rezoned to special use Villa Development before the SDGM came into existence.
RELIEF SOUGHT
1. | That the DTCP be instructed to put in place an Urgent Immediate Stop Work Order to stop all construction on Lot 1 & 2 DP 9799, CT 36183, until
the Judicial Review is completed and new plans be submitted in line with the SDGMB along with an approved OEMP and or a full EIA. |
2. | That the DTCP be ordered to produce before the Court the Approved Scheme and copies of all maps, plans and other particulars for Maui
Bay, thereafter the Approved Scheme be open to public inspection as required by law. |
3. | That a certiorari be issued to quash all decisions made and a mandamus to order the DTCP and the NRLA to revert Lot 1 and Lot 2 to
its original amalgamated state of 1 (one) Lot 7 as per the approved Scheme Plan and Subdivision. |
4. | That the DTCP and the NRLA be ordered to withdraw all building permissions as defectively granted to Lots 1 & 2 DP 9979, CT 36183. |
5. | That a Judicial Review be carried out on all building plans and outline applications on Lot 1 & 2 and that new plans be submitted
in line with the SDGMB. |
6. | That the DTCP and the NRLA be ordered to engage a government surveyor to verify all site boundaries and building pegs and ensure that
they comply with the SDGMB before building commences. |
7. | That the DTCP and the NRLA be ordered to demolish all building work carried out in violation of the SDGM including, but not limited
to all structures built on the foreshore within the 20m building line, and the upstairs 4th bedroom. |
8. | That a writ of mandamus compelling the DTCP and NRLA to perform their duties correctly and abide by the Town Planning Act Cap 139, Subdivision of Land Cap 140, General Provisions of Cap 139, Environmental Management Act 2005 and the SDGM is issued for
all future subdivisions, approvals of Outline Plans and Building Plans, for the Maui Bay Estate Development Precinct. |
9. | That the DTCP and NRLA be ordered to seal all the boreholes in the Special Use Zoned properties, on the foreshore of the Maui Bay
Estate Development in line with the SDGM. |
10. | That the DTCP pay punitive damages for breach of trust, stress and emotional suffering to the plaintiffs as the Court deems necessary
in order to stop this type of abuse of office and dereliction of duty from happening again. |
11. | That the defendants pay costs as the Court rules. |
GROUNDS OF REVIEW
1. | that the DTCP’s decision to allow the subdivision of Lot 7 into two Lots 1 and 2 of DP 9979, CT 36183 with a street frontage
of less than 20 meters for each Lot, is an error of law. |
| (a) | relaxations have to be advertised in the prescribed manner allowing for objections. The subdivision is illegal. The DTCP acted ultra vires in the grant of the subdivision by granting a major relaxation without following due process. |
(b) | the Department failed to advertise relaxations as prescribed by law, thus failing to take relevant considerations into account, acted
in breach of natural justice, acted in breach of the plaintiff’s legitimate expectation. |
2. | the DTCP and the Secretary of the NRLA, in approving the outline application and the Detailed Building Plans, acted in direct violation
of the SDGMB, the Town Planning Act Cap 139, Provisions and Environment Act 2005 – and therefore, had acted: |
| (a) | contrary to law (ultra vires) |
| (b) | contrary to the SDGMB |
| (c) | failed to advertise relaxations as prescribed by law, thus failing to take relevant considerations into account, acted in breach of
natural justice |
| (d) | claim to discretionary powers when none exist |
3. | that the DTCP and the Secretary of the NRLA acted illegally, irrationally and with no procedural fairness in terms of the Town Planning Act Cap 139, General Provisions of Cap 139, Subdivisions of Land Act Cap 140, SDGMB, and the Environment Act. |
BASIC ISSUES
"scheme" means a scheme under this Act, and, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, includes a substituted scheme and a scheme modifying or altering an existing scheme;
WAS THE DECISION TO SUBDIVIDE AN ERROR OF LAW?
The minimum lot size allowed is 1000 square meters and the need to further subdivide any existing allotments will strictly take into consideration the physical features (topography, foreshore areas), sufficient building area and merit issues of the subdivision. In as far as possible and to retain the low key and scale features of the precinct, further subdivision may not be entertained if it does not provide proper building areas
7.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the permission of the local authority shall be required in respect of any development of land carried out within a town planning area during the period before a scheme affecting such area has been finally approved
“.... any use of the land or any building, either wholly or in part, which is materially different from the purpose for which the land or building was last being used”
7.-(3) The local authority shall not grant or refuse permission under this section without the prior consent of the Director and the Director may approve such grant or refusal either unconditionally or subject to conditions and may prohibit such grant or refusal.
7.-(4) In dealing with applications for permission to develop land under this section, the local authority and the Director shall have regard to the matters set out in the Schedule, to provisions proposed to be included in a scheme and to any other material considerations.
WHETHER THE DTCP AND THE SECRETARY OF THE NRLA, IN APPROVING THE OUTLINE APPLICATION AND THE DETAILED BUILDING PLANS, ACTED IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE SDGMB, THE TOWN PLANNING ACT CAP 139, PROVISIONS AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 2005 – AND THEREFORE, HAD ACTED CONTRARY TO LAW (ULTRA VIRES), CONTRARY TO THE SDGMB, FAILED TO ADVERTISE RELAXATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THUS FAILING TO TAKE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS INTO ACCOUNT, ACTED IN BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CLAIMED TO HAVE DISCRETIONARY POWERS WHEN NONE EXISTS?
That the need for an Environmental Management Plan [“EMP”] and an Operational Environment Management Plan [“OEMP”]
for Villa developments providing more than 4-bedroom units be determined by the Director of Environment (DOE). If that is required
then the documents be prepared and approved by DOE before detail (sic) plans are approved.
I have noted that the Outline Consent had specifically conditioned an approved Operational Environment Management Plan (OEMP) be submitted along with the Detailed Plans. In having to facilitate approvals, our Western Division when considering the Detailed Plans carried forward this condition as part of conditions of consent to the detailed plans. Thus, the additional condition to ensure compliance to the Special Use Tourism Villa Zones shall be read as follows:
(ii) No completion certificate, occupancy certificate nor hotel licence shall be issued prior to approval of the OEMP by the Director of Environment.
You will acknowledge in our discussion our concern on there being an absence of the Monitoring Committee as required in the approved OEMP for the existing four (4) villa developments.
To date, there has been none established to serve its purpose as a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance of the requirements for tourism villas in the coastal side of Maui and as per condition of the approved OEMP. By a copy of this letter, the Director of Environment is requested to facilitate and ensure that this condition is fully complied with given our experiences in Maui Bay as well deliberating with villa developments in Fiji.
The position of the Department of Town and Country Planning has also not waivered in that the Director shall not entertain any new more tourism development proposals for Maui Bay until the conditions of the OEMP for those previously consented to is complied with i.e., the establishment of the Monitoring Committee, members of which shall be representatives of DOE, DTCP, Maui Bay Estates, residents’ representatives and operators’ representative.
GIVEN THAT THE SDGMB IS NOT A “SCHEME UNDER THE ACT” – CAN A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION ARISE OUT OF IT?
Maui Bay Estate was subdivided as a large up market residential area with residential lots ranging from 1000 square meters up to over 4000 sq meters. Such lot sizes qualify for Residential “A” type developments. The location of this development area within the Coral Coast Tourism Zone warrants the need to create specific flexible planning environment wherein development parameters, performance criteria and guidelines (sic). These are set in accordance with the need to keep the estate as a predominant low key up market residential area with the provisions of Special Use (Villa) developments of up market. Low key and low scale developments that blend in well and compatible with the residential development.
We would also like to thank you for clarifying that the Specific Development Guidelines for Maui Bay Estate is a ratified document and that the Department of Town and Country are going to ensure that all Villas that have been built since its ratification on the 23 December 2009, will have to follow those guidelines.
There have been a few ongoing questions between residents of the Maui Bay Estate, regarding the Specific Development Guidelines for Maui Bay Estate. Due to confusion and disagreement, Maui Bay Estate became a very volatile and unpleasant place to live. Some individuals have resorted to bribery, and some have even gone as far as assaulting other residents.
It has taken quite some time, but we (the residents) finally feel that everyone living here has accepted the Specific Development Guidelines for Maui Bay Estate and we understand that some of the first sights (sic) have been accepted as they were and grandfathered in order to bring order to the development, and make illegal developments legal. Having this document has been a blessing, as it allows everyone to be protected, the residents, the Hotel site, and the Special Villa operators as fairly as possible.
Unfortunately, every time a new lot owner decides to develop here at Maui Bay, and especially on the foreshore, they inevitably try to rehash the rules and regulations and find ways in which to by pass them. It is for this reason, that we feel our best way to preserve the long-term peace here at Maui Bay, is to ensure that all lot owners are informed about the Specific Development Guidelines for Maui Bay Estate as early in their planning stage as possible and are informed that they will be enforced, as many people have the old belief of “this is Fiji, who is going to stop me”.
We thank you for responding to our questions and taking the time to clearing matters up for us.
The following questions were brought up at our meeting:
(a) Are the guidelines only a guide but not a rule?
(b) Will the lots on the Hillside be permitted to rezone?
(c) Who will enforce these guidelines?
(d) Why is the Saw Mill still running?
(e) Are other business / services permitted to be run from Special Villas, e.g. Meke shows, fishing charters, spa treatments, car hire and airport transfers?
As per our meeting, it is our understanding that the answers to these questions were as follows:
(a) The guidelines are a guide line as each person will build to different plans, but that all buildings on the foreshore, must be within the guidelines, unless they wish to rezone to residential only.
(b) No lots on the hill side will be rezoned special use villa.
(c) Laws are in the process of being put into place to ensure that the authorities have the ability to deal with law breakers.
(d) It is understood that the Saw Mill will be removed by the given date on their notice, which we believe was 1 month.
(e) Absolutely No other business or service is permitted to run from Special Villa’s, as they are for accommodation only.
As discussed at our meeting, we would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the need for these guidelines to be adhered to by all equally. We realize that the document notes on page 3 that the Director of Town and Country Planning has the discretion to make relaxations on this document. We plead with the Director of Town and Country Planning and the Minister, not to make any relaxations with regards to this document as it will only disrupt the harmonious living that we have finally managed to reach and it will start the fights between residents all over again.
Our concerns for this are very real, as we already have a new lot owner, Mr. Francis Kumar, who refuses to follow the guidelines and argues that they are not ratified. He also states that the Minister in Charge of Town and Country Planning has given him permission to go ahead and has approved his plans. This is of great concern to the residents here. When we object, Mr. Kumar simply states, “who is going to stop me?”
We would like refer to sections in the Specific Development Guidelines for Maui Bay Estate, which we believe needs to be addressed, either with Government Departments, or with Lot owners. We humbly request the following be addressed, to assist us in keeping the Maui Bay Estate, legal, calm and a beautiful place for all people alike, tourists, special villa operators and residents.
Please see the attached schedule of concerns.
As we have mentioned to you at the meeting, our concerns have been amplified by Mr. Kumar from Lot 24 insisting that he doesn’t have to follow the guidelines, and also three staff members from Town and Country who came to discuss the matter with us a few weeks ago, and we were under the impression that the Specific Development Guidelines for Maui Bay Estate was not a legal document and that it was not ratified.
Once again, we would like to thank you for your time and understanding.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the Residents
Evette De La Mare, Craig De La Mare, Ruth Peterson
Dear Sir,
RE: REZONING OF LOTS 1-6 DP 9240 AND LOTS 1-16,18 & 19 MUAVUNISE, BARAVI, NADROGA – MAUI BAY DEVELOPMENT
Reference is made to the block rezoning of the listed coastal properties at Maui Bay and apologies for our late response.
To rectify the complaints on the illegal Tourism Operations occurring in the area, the Director has taken the initiative to regularize the Development by rezoning the above-mentioned properties from Residential to Special Use (Tourism- Villa sites) with site specific development guidelines.
The Local Authority is required to strictly monitor building development applications within the rezoned area to ensure full compliance and reduce complaints raised by concerned parties.
Please find attached two copies of the duly signed Approved rezoning plans and the Specific Development Guidelines for Maui Bay Estate for your necessary action.
By a copy of this letter, the Ministry of Lands, Ministry of Trade, Investment Communications and Tourism, the Attorney General, the Prime Minister’s Office, Fiji Islands Trade and Investment Board and Fiji Inland Revenue and Customs Authority are informed accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
....................
Maria Duguvesi
For Acting Director of Town & Country Planning
The doctrine recognizes that, in the absence of any overriding reason of law or policy excluding its operation, situations may arise in which persons may have a legitimate expectation of a substantive outcome or benefit, in which event failing to honor the expectation may, in particular circumstances, result in such unfairness to individuals as to amount to an abuse of power justifying intervention by the court
The privilege, advantage or benefit may be substantive in nature or only procedural. However, as Mason C.J. stressed in Quin (supra) at p.21, when applying the concept of legitimate expectation, a Court must avoid confusion between the content of the expectation and the right to procedural fairness.
A court has no power, in judicial review proceedings, to determine the merits of the decision under review. For that reason, we consider that the few English cases, (such as R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1984] EWCA Civ 8; [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1337), in which a legitimate expectation was held to exist that substantive policy would not be changed, are not helpful.
In the Council of Civil Service Unions case (supra) Lord Diplock referred to the concept of legitimate expectation as based on the natural justice requirement of procedural propriety. A legitimate expectation, where it exists, is that procedural propriety will be observed for the protection of the privilege, advantage or benefit to which the expectation relates. In the words of McHugh J. (dissenting but not on this point) in Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh [1995] HCA 20; (1995) 183 CLR 273, 312 the concept of legitimate expectation enlivens the rules of procedural fairness. We are not to be taken, however, to exclude the possibility suggested by Dawson J. in Quin (supra) at 60, that the selective application of an existing policy in an individual case may, depending on the facts, amount to a failure to accord the fairness required by natural justice.
(i) Parliament entrusts decision makers with discretionary powers
(ii) Decision makers must retain that discretion
(iii) Administrative discretion cannot be fettered
for Courts to hold administrative bodies bound by substantive legitimate expectation is to fetter their discretion (which goes against the grain of the discretion that Parliament has conferred) and an intrusion into the merits of administrative decision – which is outside the scope of Judicial Review – because that is what Parliament entrusted with the decision maker.
CONCLUSION
..................................
Anare Tuilevuka
JUDGE
27 February 2023
[1] See Affidavit of Talei Rokotuibau sworn on 11 April 2017.
[2] This letter dated 16 July 2012 is annexed and marked TR8 in Talei Rokotuibau’s affidavit.
[3] See paragraph 9 of Talei Rokotuibau’s affidavit.
[4] The preface to the General Provisions reads:
The General Provisions attached hereto have been approved by the Director of Town & Country Planning and are to be used for the purposes of Section 7(4) of the Town Planning Act as containing provisions proposed to be included in Town Planning Schemes. These General Provisions are to be applied as Interim Development Control or as Guidelines in the following classes of areas and cases.
[5] Provision 6 provides:
Provision 6: Relaxation from General Provisions
The Council may, subject to the approval of the Director consent to a relaxation of any of the requirements laid down in these General Provisions and so long as the use or development is in accordance with the terms of such consent no offence against these provisions shall be deemed to be committed by such use or development.
Such consent, which shall be in writing, may be granted only when it is considered that the proposed development in respect of which relaxation is sought would not conflict with the overall principles of the Scheme.
Any such consent may be for a limited period named therein and subject to such conditions or restrictions as to use or otherwise as the Director and the Council may think fit to impose.
[6] Provision 7 provides:
Provision 7: Notification of Relaxations
Where the Council with the consent of the Director proposes to exercise the discretionary power vested in it under Provision 6 of these General provisions.
(a) It shall publicly notify at the applicant's expense, its intention so to do by an advertisement published in the Republic of Fiji Gazette and in two issues of a paper circulating in the district at an interval of not less than seven days.
(b) Every Owner or Occupier of property within the area covered by the Scheme shall have a right of objection to the proposed exemption, and may, by notice in writing addressed to the Council, give notice of such objection and the grounds thereof at any time within 30 days after the first public notification of Council's intention.
(c) Before arriving at a decision, the Council shall take into account any objections submitted to it and may afford objectors the right to be heard at a special meeting of the Council to be called for the purpose.
Provided that where the relaxation of the requirements of these General Provisions is of such a minor nature as to appear to cause no inconvenience or detriment to owners of affected land the Council and the Director may dispense with the requirements of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) and further provided that the Council shall seek the comments of owners of properties likely to be affected by the relaxation."
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2023/96.html