Comiskey Group v Sunshine Coast Regional Council

[2010] QPEC 124

[2010] QPEC 124

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Appeal No 492 of 2010

COMISKEY GROUP	Appellant
and
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 03/11/2010
ORDER CATCHWORDS

Integrated Planning Act 1997, s 3.5.33(7)

Appeal against Council refusal to change its earlier approval of a shopping centre - parties now agreed on the change on basis of increased park provision and reduced infrastructure charges - court required to consider submissions about original application - those were irrelevant to the subject matter of the change

1-1

HIS HONOUR: The court has made an order in terms of the

1

initialled draft pursuant to s 3.5.33 of the Integrated

Planning Act 1997.

The appeal is against the refusal of the Council to change its

earlier approval which resulted in a development permit for a	10
material change of use of premises for a shopping centre complex of 1,450 square metres in respect of land at Coes Creek Road, Burnside.
The appeal is resolved on the basis that rather more land is	20
dedicated as park than the Council's conditions for agreeing to a change contemplated. However, the appellant obtains relief in respect of the quantum of infrastructure charges which the Council had demanded earlier.
30
Subsection (7) of the provision referred to requires the
entity making the decision, now the court, to have regard to matters identified, including the submissions that have been made about the application under which the conditions under
appeal were originally imposed. Those have been put before	40
the court. There were six of them, including a petition with
some 150 signatures or thereabouts. The concerns expressed in
those submissions, which I have considered as the Act
requires, relate to need for the development and traffic
issues, including the safety of school children and cyclists	50

in particular. There are concerns about over-development of
what these submitters valued as a quiet area with a certain
rural character and in a detailed submission from a church,
one encounters concerns expressed about potential flooding, 1-2 ORDER 60

1

noise, security issues that might be created for the church
and concerns about the likely use of its car park by shoppers.
Concerns of that kind required consideration when the original
application was made. No doubt the Council as assessment

manager considered them. They are not "relevant" to	10
s 3.5.33(7) in the context of the changes to conditions which the appellant seeks and, today, successfully.

-----

20

30

40

50

1-3 ORDER 60