Carrigan v Goondiwindi Regional Council

Case [2016] QPEC 8


PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND


CITATION:

Carrigan v Goondiwindi Regional Council [2016] QPEC 8

PARTIES:

GRANT PATRICK CARRIGAN
(applicant)

v

GOONDIWINDI REGIONAL COUNCIL
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2346 of 2015

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Hearing of an Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 February 2016

JUDGE:

Jones DCJ

ORDERS/
 RULINGS:

The use constitutes a material change of use of the premises.1.          

The use falls within the definition of a detached house for the purposes of the planning scheme.  2.          

HEARING OF AN APPLICATION – APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF PRELIMINARY ISSUES – Whether shed unlawfully constructed on the subject land constituted a material change of use for the purposes of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – and, if so, whether the use fell within the definition of “detached house” or “storage facility” or is otherwise undefined under the relevant planning scheme

FINDINGS OF FACT – Where court invited to make findings adverse to the applicant based on circumstantial evidence – whether such findings open on the evidence

MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – whether construction of large shed on large rural residential allotment amounted to a material change of use because – it introduced a new use to the premises – it constituted a re-establishment of an abandoned use – it was a material increase in the scale and/or intensity of the use of the premises.

Sustainable Planning Act 2009

Waggamba Shire Council Planning Scheme 2006

Leeming v City of Port Adelaide [No. 2] (1987) 62 LGRA 296

Maroochy Shire Council v Barnes [2001] QPELR 475

Gorrie & Anor v Mackay City Council & Anor [2003] QPELR 328

Morgan-Phoenix v Gold Coast City Council [2007] QPEC 31

Southside Action Group Against the Proposed Dump at Rochedale Incorporated v Brisbane City Council & Anor (1992) 76 LGRA 402

COUNSEL:

Ms M J Kefford for the applicant
Mr J T Dillon for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McCullough Robertson for the applicant
King & Company for the respondent

  1. This application is concerned with determining the following questions:

“(1)       whether the use of the proposed shed constitutes a material change of use of the subject land; and

(2)if the use of the proposed shed constitutes a material change of use of the subject land, whether the use falls within the definition of ‘detached house’ or ‘storage facility’ provided in the Waggamba Shire Council planning scheme 2006 or, alternatively whether the use is a use not defined in the planning scheme.”

  1. For the reasons set out below the answer to those questions are as follows:

1. The use constitutes a material change of use of the premises.       

The use falls within the definition of a detached house for the purposes of the planning scheme.  2.          

Background               

  1. The applicant is the owner of a 2.798 hectare lot located on the outskirts of Goondiwindi.  The land is located in the Low Density Residential Precinct of the Low Density Residential Zone of…

Details
AGLC
Carrigan v Goondiwindi Regional Council [2016] QPEC 8
Case
[2016] QPEC 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between Grant Patrick Carrigan and Goondiwindi Regional Council concerning whether the construction of a large shed on Carrigan's rural residential property constituted a material change of use, and if so, whether it fell within the definition of a "detached house" or "storage facility" under the Waggamba Shire Council Planning Scheme 2006. Carrigan had constructed the shed without obtaining necessary approvals, leading to enforcement proceedings by the Council. The Court found that the construction of the shed did constitute a material change of use because it introduced a new use (storage) to the premises, which was not merely incidental to the residential use. Despite the size and intended initial use of the shed for commercial purposes, the Court accepted Carrigan's current intention to use the majority of the shed for personal storage purposes associated with his rural residential property. Consequently, the Court ruled that the use of the shed fell within the definition of a "detached house" for the purposes of the planning scheme. The Court's final orders were that the use constitutes a material change of use of the premises and that the use falls within the definition of a detached house for the purposes of the planning scheme.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.