Forward Project Management Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council

[2012] QPEC 55

[2012] QPEC 55

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 349 of 2007

FORWARD PROJECT MANAGEMENT PTY LTD,
MARILYN CORDELL
(ALSO KNOWN AS MARILYN SEGAL) and OTHERS

Appellant

Appellant

and

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/09/201

..DAY 1

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 s 350, s 821

Developer's appeal against deemed refusal - minor change to development proposal where 18 lots become 21 by an increase from 11 to 14 within the same footprint in the northern section of the subdivision - lots in the southern section will no longer straddle a road so as to place some within a flood line - roads widened

HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which recites its satisfaction that certain changes made to the appellants' development application as set out in Mr Ransom's affidavit are minor changes within sections 821(2) and 350 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

The council is accepting of the declaration in relation to changes being minor but yet to reveal its response to them.  The underlying appeal is one against a deemed refusal of the development application.

Changes include chiefly an increase in a number of residential allotments proposed by three from 18 to 21.  In these times of high demand for residential land in South-East Queensland that's normally a favourable circumstance.  The effects of the change on the character of the proposed development are limited.  In essence, one additional lot is provided on the southern side of a new road connected with Baltimore Court which adjoins the site.  Another new lot is created around the corner, so to speak, on the north-south road running through the site, and there will be two battleaxe blocks at the rear accessed from that road rather than one only.

Inevitably there will be a limited reduction of lot sizes in stage 1 given the increase in allotments there from 11 to 14.  There's also proposed some reduction in the size of the stage 2 lots which will now all be located on the northern side of that road in the southern part of the site where it veers to the east rather than the lots straddling the road, meaning that some of them would have come within a flood line that has been established for the site at the level described as approximately 4.35 metres.

There's a proposal that rather than there being seven community title lots in stage 2 there be seven freehold lots.  That's probably something that would have considerable appeal to potential purchasers of the lots.  It's difficult to see that it makes the proposal different at all.  If anything it would seem to me to simplify it by removing the prospect of one more community title scheme.

A private road originally proposed is now to become a public road.  In contrary vein, perhaps, a dedication of parkland proposed is now removed.  The particular metes and bounds are now being part of a management lot which I take to indicate a lot whose ultimate future is yet to be determined.  Mr Ransom says that by this arrangement the council would be relieved of a burden associated with future maintenance of parkland.  There's also a relocation of a sewer pump station.  Finally, there are minor changes proposed to internal road widths, by way of increases of a metre.

In those circumstances it's entirely appropriate that the appeal proceed on the basis of the changed proposal.

‑‑‑‑‑