Ge Mallan Investments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

[2010] QPEC 123

[2010] QPEC 123

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Appeal No 818 of 2008

GE MALLAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 03/11/2010
ORDER CATCHWORDS

Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 350, s 759, s 821(2)(b)

Integrated Planning Act 1997, s 4.1.52(2)(b)

Developer appeal - changes in design of factory/warehouse
proposal constituted "minor" change, so that appeal could
proceed on basis of them - application impact assessable for
heritage reasons (site a munitions factory in World War II) -
additional sections of "original"
building preserved, number of units reduced - additional

parking and vehicle movements to be accommodated on site

1-1

HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft, which has the effect of allowing the appellant developer's appeal against Council’s refusal of a development application for a warehouse/factory type development at Salisbury. The development application required impact assessment, given that existing structures on the site had heritage recognition because of their use during the Second World War as a munitions factory. The court understands that there had been considerable changes to the fabric, so it's the historical association that is significant. No submissions were received in the public notification.

What the court is asked to do is accept as minor change some
redesign of the proposal. That requires application of the
minor change test provided by s 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Integrated
Planning Act 1997 which, so far as the definition of minor
change is concerned, has been overtaken by provisions in the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009, in particular ss 350, 759 and

821(2)(b).

The changes are of a kind which reduces the scale and impact of the development by height reductions and the like. The Council's concern to limit the extent of demolition of the heritage structures is assuaged to an extent. There'll be retention of four corners of one of the existing buildings. In addition, the impacts of the development will be reduced by changes such as the relocation on the site, of parking and other vehicle movements that otherwise might have occurred on the street. While I should note there's increased parking provision on the site, there is to be a reduction in the number of proposed tenancies on the site from twelve to eight, which will lead to reductions in impacts. On no conceivable basis could the changes be seen as producing a substantially different development. The changes made ought to be accepted by the Court as minor under the relevant definition.	1-2	ORDER
Order as per initialled draft.

-----

1-3 ORDER