Collard v Brisbane City Council

The case of Collard v Brisbane City Council involves a dispute regarding a change of use approval for a property. The Planning and Environment Court was tasked with determining whether the conditions of the approval, which had been set by a compromise, should be altered. The original approval granted by the Council allowed for a height of 9.5 metres above ground level for a small lot house, but this was reduced to 9.2 metres following a neighbour's appeal. The new owner of the property sought to have the conditions of the approval altered to reinstate the original height of 9.5 metres. The court had to consider whether the submitter of the appeal, who could not be located and whose residence may have been affected by the change in height, was properly served with the notice of the application to vary the conditions. The court also needed to determine whether the submitter's residence had been constructed without the necessary approvals.

The court considered the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, the Planning and Environment Court Rules 2008, and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. It was established that the submitter had been ordered to be served with the application, but service by post to her premises, which was her sole known address, had not been successful in bringing the application to her attention. The court acknowledged the uncertainty of whether the submitter had been properly served and decided to alter the conditions of the approval to protect the non-appearing submitter's position. The court set new conditions for the development, taking into account the potential impact on the submitter's residence and ensuring that her position was adequately protected.

In light of the court's decision, the conditions of the approval were altered to provide for the development at the original height of 9.5 metres above ground level. The court made specific provisions to safeguard the submitter's position, given the uncertainty regarding her service and the potential impact of the development on her residence. The final orders of the court ensured that the new owner of the property could proceed with the development as originally approved, while also protecting the interests of the non-appearing submitter.