Atwal v. Beaudesert Shire Council

[2007] QPEC 17

[2007] QPEC 017

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No BD1828 of 2005

AJIT ATWAL	Appellant
and
BEAUDESERT SHIRE COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/02/2007

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 s4.1.52(2)(b) - minor change only where vehicle repair activities are to occur in one part of an existing shed other than another part, as originally proposed.

HIS HONOUR: This appeal has been resolved, subject to the Court's being satisfied of certain matters, by its being allowed and the appellant's development application approved subject to an agreed conditions package. In the circumstances, some changes are made to the development application which the Court must be satisfied represent minor change for purposes of section 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act of 1997 if this appeal is to be the occasion for a development permit eventuating from the application.

Ms Foord relies on an affidavit of Craig Anthony Walton, a copy of which she supplied to the Court to establish relevant matters, and a further affidavit by him in relation to public notification as well as an affidavit of another deponent in respect of the appeal being appropriately notified to anyone entitled to know of it.  Her expectation that those three affidavits were filed two days ago is not borne out by the state of the file or the file index.  The two day delay is unusual and I take it the matter can be cleared up in relation to the procedural matters.  The Court has the comfort of Ms Ferres' assurance that the Council have checked these aspects and are satisfied.  As far as the other is concerned, the Court is acting on the copy of Mr Walton's longer affidavit which has been handed up, dealing with the changes. 

There were no submissions received in relation to the application, which was impact assessable.  The Council's concerns which led it to refuse the application in the first instance have been alleviated by relocating the vehicle repair activities proposed from one part of the existing shed 2 on the site to another part of the shed.  That is seen as having benefit by way of reducing noise impact. 

It has also been clarified that access to shed 2 will not be taken through a doorway at the end of it which would invite access to be taken around the existing shed 1 which is closer to Buccan Road than shed 2.  That doorway is to be kept closed.  The intention apparently always has been that access to shed 2 would be obtained through shed 1 to which a gravel driveway from Buccan Road presently exists. 

It is perhaps not as clear as it might be from material before the Court that those are the access arrangements because no path is shown linking the doors in the sides of shed 1 and shed 2 which face each other.  The sheds are parallel to each other and parallel to Buccan Road with their long sides facing it. 

I have taken the trouble to give these reasons with a view to clarifying matters against the possibility that uncertainty might arise some time in the future.  I ought to say there is no particular reason to anticipate that that might occur. 

This is a case of a "minor changes" as defined.  From outside shed 2, it will be completely undetectable.

Orders as per initialled draft. 

-----