Earthteck Qld Pty Ltd v Redland City Council

[2022] QPEC 25

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Earthteck Qld Pty Ltd v Redland City Council [2022] QPEC 25.

PARTIES:

EARTHTECK QLD PTY LTD
(Applicant)

v

REDLAND CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1915/2021

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 July 2022, ex tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 July 2022

JUDGES:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPLICATION – application for a minor change to a development application – whether the changes result in a minor change as defined in schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld)

LEGISLATION:

Planning Act 2016 (Qld)

CASES:

Northbrook v Noosa Shire Council [2015] QPELR 664

Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council [2021] QPELR 809

COUNSEL:

W Macintosh for the Applicant

D Whitehouse for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

HWL Ebsworth for the Applicant
Redland City Council Legal Service for the Respondent

1. This is an application for a minor change to a development application. The only issue which arises for determination is whether or not the changes constitute a minor change, having regard to the definition in schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) and, in particular, the requirement that the change not result in a substantially different development.

2. At the heart of the submission of the appellant is the assertion that with the proposed changes, the proposed development will still represent a small-scale low density residential development comprising detached housing in a bushland setting.  While this may be so, this does not provide an answer to the consideration as to whether or not the changes result in a substantially different development. 

3. When regard is had to exhibit 1, the plans which accompanied the development application, and then to exhibit 2, the proposed plan, a markedly different lot layout with an increased number of lots is evident. 

4. The changes are submitted to be ameliorative, and in particular, I note that from a bushfire management perspective, a ring road is now proposed.  Although the development will be located on essentially the same development footprint, the changes involve the addition of five lots, so that a proposed 15-lot reconfiguration becomes a 20-lot reconfiguration, and the proposed lots are now much smaller. 

5. Regard must be had to the concept of a substantially different development, and as has been previously observed in this Court, this involves considering whether or not the changes result in an essentially or materially different development.[1]   That is clearly the case here. 

   [1]See Northbrook v Noosa Shire Council [2015] QPELR 664; Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council [2021] QPELR 809.

6. It is not sufficient that the proposed development remains a small residential development comprising detached housing in a bushland setting when the layout of the proposed reconfiguration and the lots themselves are radically different.  In addition, the number of lots has increased by 25%. Obviously, the fact that the changes are ameliorative does not mean that as a consequence the proposed development remains essentially or materially the same.

7. On the facts before me, the proposed development is markedly changed, and the changes fall outside the concept of a minor change.

8. I, therefore, dismiss the application.