Shannon is looking to open a florist shop in a heritage listed building situated adjacent to the Richmond railway station. The building has previously been used as a post office, but is now unoccupied and is being offered for sale.

Before making an offer to buy the property, Shannon phones the Hawkesbury City Council to investigate the current zoning. She speaks to Ben, a receptionist, who informs Shannon that all of the planning advisors are currently busy. Shannon says she is in a hurry and Ben responds that his belief is that, if a post office has previously been operating in this building, then it should be fine to use it for another commercial use. Ben also gives Shannon the email address for one of the planning officers.

The next day Shannon writes up her query regarding the zoning of the post office building in a letter, signs it and emails it, as an attachment, to the planning officer.

The following week Shannon receives a formal response from the planning officer, on council letterhead, stating that the building referred to is currently zoned commercial mixed-use and therefore a florist business would be within the permitted uses.

On the basis of this letter, Shannon makes an offer to purchase the property, and this is immediately accepted.

It turns out the planning officer mixed up Shannon's request with another property and the building is actually zoned residential, with a one-off special use permit provided to the operator of the post office. It now looks unlikely that Shannon would ever be able to operate a florist business in this building. Further, the proximity to the noisy railway station, renders the property undesirable for residential use, meaning that Shannon would only be able to sell the property for significantly less than she originally paid for it.

Advise Shannon on the likelihood of success in bringing an action against the Hawkesbury City Council for negligent misstatement.