Consolidated Properties Group Pty Ltd & Anor v. Brisbane City Council

[2008] QPEC 67

[2008] QPEC 67

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2295 of 2008

CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 010 178 323) & ANOR	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL & ORS	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 12/09/2008

ORDER
CATCHWORDS: Directions in submitter appeal made to facilitate an early hearing so that approved development in a school might occur before commencement of new school year.

HIS HONOUR:  The Court is impressed by the desirability of getting the school's proposed addition of a floor on top of one of its buildings completed for the commencement of the next school year.  The Council has given necessary approvals. 

The other party responding to this submitter appeal is the Queensland Heritage Council, involved in the assessment process apparently because of the proximity of the proposed development to another heritage building constituting part of the school fabric.  Ms Azimi, representing the Heritage Council, is disadvantaged for lack of knowledge of the history of the matter.  It's unknown just what role the Heritage Council played in the assessment process, but it wouldn't seem to have been excluded.  It’s unknown whether the Heritage Council may want to seek particulars of the grounds of appeal.  That's the most essential part of the relief which the co-respondent school wants today.

I find the grounds of appeal totally unhelpful in referring, without the slightest particularity, to numerous parts of the City Plan and in not relating the provisions referred to in any specific way to the approved plans.  It will probably turn out, as the school's representative suggests, that the issue is height in respect of which there is non-compliance with the codes or, at least, with acceptable solutions or measures.  That is a reason why the development application was
impact-assessable.  It may well turn out to be the reason why the appellant is dissatisfied and regards itself as having worthwhile appeal prospects.

In my view, the school is entitled to the particulars it seeks and oughtn't to have to wait until it's seen whether or not the Queensland Heritage Council has its own request for particulars.  I've gone along with the co-respondent's timetable proposed today, but qualified it to signify that there are real problems whether the desired two hearing days in the November pool can be made available by the Court, or whether days in the December sittings can be made available. 

There'll be a review of the matter on the 1st of October when the order specifically indicates that the appropriateness of the directions incorporated in the order, which would require to be complied with after that date, can be looked at again.  We'll have a clearer picture of whether there's any possibility of time in the Court.

The Court understands the misgivings of the parties other than the school regarding their ability to get ready for hearing at an early date, but, for the moment, I think the Court should strive to make provision for an early resolution if at all possible.  I may be proved wrong, but my suspicion at the moment is that the issues are likely to be confined and straightforward. 

Orders as per initialled draft.

-----