Ecco Developments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

[2008] QPEC 92

[2008] QPEC 92

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2490 of 2008

ECCO DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD	Applicant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/10/2008

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.5A - applicant developer's failure to notify entities connected with one of several parcels adjoining its site excused when all those entities now fully informed, stated that had they had relevant material earlier they would not have made submission.

HIS HONOUR:  The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft incorporating directions and declarations of its satisfaction that there has been compliance with the requirements for giving notice of the notice of appeal.  It also declares the Court's satisfaction that there's been substantial compliance with provisions relating to the giving of notice of the development application to adjoining owners and that the partial non-compliance hasn't restricted the opportunity for a person to exercise the rights conferred on the person by the Act, being the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), or any other Act for the purposes of section 4.1.5A of the IPA.

The consequences of the failure to serve three entities having relevant interests in one of the several parcels adjoining the development site, which is that of the former Rocklea Hotel at 1311 Ipswich Road, Rocklea, might have been serious.  It wasn't until the public notification period had come to an end that the overlooking of those three entities was discovered and steps were taken to fully inform them of relevant particulars of the development application.  As it happens, a cooperative attitude has been encountered.

The interested entities are the body corporate and the occupiers under two separate tenancies.  One of the latter has changed hands.  To be on the safe side, both the former and the present owners have been contacted.  They, the other tenant and Mr Jarrett (representing the body corporate) have provided written confirmation that had they had the relevant material earlier they would not have been interested in making any submission.

For what it's worth the letters in question indicate support for the development which is for a material change of use for uses very similar to those in the general area.

‑‑‑‑‑