Mr PRESIDENT - In my electorate.

Mr DEAN - It was a tragic situation because the matter came before council, or a development review committee, for assessment and it was identified that the plans put in did not comply with the development scheme. There was advice given to the developer and a number of representors came along, also opposed to the initial development application. The developer in that instance gave an undertaking to reduce the height of that building. That was the essence of it, the height of the building. At the end of the day the developer went ahead and built the building to his original plan; he ignored the position of the council in relation to it and an undertaking that had been given to the representors at the development review meeting.

Mr Aird - Did he get an order?

Mr DEAN - A number of complaints were made and inspectors, surveyors - you name it - went to the building and took height readings and all the other things that had to be done. At the end of the day, a stop-work meeting was ordered in relation to that building. Then it came back to the council again and I am at a loss to explain it, and I need to be a little careful here - I guess it suffices to say that when it came back before the full council, on this occasion the council went against an original decision and approved the construction of the house at the height at which it had been constructed. I was not one of the aldermen who voted that way, let me say that very clearly. I was quite vocal about that -

Mr Aird - So they retrospectively agreed to this?

Mr DEAN - They retrospectively agreed to it. I was vocal and disgusted with the position that had been taken. It really made an innocent party at the end of the day the guilty party because there would be an appeal against it, and I knew that would be happening. In fact an appeal was taken, and how and why that appeal was not successful I do not know. The advice I was given was - and this is what happens with these cases, Mr President - that developers and the larger developers, of course, are able to hire the high fliers, the QCs and all of those other people to represent them, whereas the smaller people - and in this instance it was a representor living in a home right next door - did not have the ability to do that. Suffice to say that case was lost, and costs at this stage, thank goodness, have been adjourned awaiting, of course, the outcome of this matter. The costs are quite substantial and it would be a travesty of justice, in my view, if it was a situation where that person had to pay a penny. At the end of the day he may now have to share in the costs of that, but I would be seeking some other support for that gentleman in that situation.

I have spoken to both the Launceston City Council at length on this and the George Town Council. Both bodies support the amendment, but they say, as the member for Huon mentioned, provided there is care in relation to the vexatious and frivolous appeals then they want to be assured that in those cases the costs will be awarded where they ought to go, and that is to the people taking out the appeal in the first place if they fit within that criteria.