Blazen Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

[2010] QPEC 28

[2010] QPEC 28

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 3766 of 2009

BLAZEN PTY LTD	Applicant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/03/2010

..DAY 1

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 s 367, s 369

"Permissible change" where relocation of office space in building accommodating mixed development permitted provision of an additional residential "unit" - development not substantially different or likely to provoke a submission - the change would alleviate the concerns of the sole submitter during public notification

HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft under section 369 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The court's involvement is unnecessary because the current development approval is constituted by this court's order of the 13th of June 2008 in BD 3766 of 2007 which allowed an appeal.

The change being made is to relocate the upstairs part of the office component of the mixed development to ground floor level at the expense of parking provisions in a space which was always to be enclosed.  The space above the office fronting Kedron Brook Road, which is thus made available, is to be used to produce an additional residential "unit", so-called. 

There's a slight increase, 2 square metres, in office space and of course the incorporation in the proposal of an additional dwelling unit which - in line with current policies of the State and local authorities - is seen as a favourable change accommodating an additional household in an appropriate area of the city.

The definition of "permissible change" in section 367, especially in paragraph 1(c), invites the court to pay attention to the submissions which actually were received. There was but one, submitted electronically. It's exhibited to Mr Mulcahy's affidavit and is also before the court as Exhibit 1. The lady whose submission was lodged electronically opposed the expansion of the Wilston Village commercial area. What she had to say was limited to "office space fronting Kedron Brook Road".

She expressed a fear that in time the use might change to retail.  She thought the application should be for residential use only, not mixed use.  In that regard her views failed to persuade the Council.  The change if made goes to ameliorate the objector's concerns, I would think.  It's not likely that the change now proposed to the court would motivate any other reasonable person to make a submission.  Order as per initialled draft.

-----