GPS Properties Pty Ltd v Scenic Rim Regional Council

[2013] QPEC 65

[2013] QPEC 65

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2515 of 2013

GPS PROPERTIES PTY LTD  Applicant

and

SCENIC RIM REGIONAL COUNCIL
and ANOTHER  Respondent

BRISBANE

10.51 AM, THURSDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2013

JUDGMENT

CATCHWORDS

Increased lot yield held permissible change - obtaining of consent from all owners excused where there were some 35 new owners following completion of “Stage 1”

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 s367, s371(e)

HIS HONOUR:   There’ll be an order in terms of the initialled draft.  It is acceptable to both the applicant developer and the respondent Council.  The other party to the appeal, the Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads, in the current emanation of the State’s administrative arrangements, is not interested, apart from indicating, in a written communication, contentment that the intersection of internal roads servicing the site with Mount Lindesay Highway need no longer be signalised.  The development approval is constituted by a court order of the 8^th of April 2009 in BD2716 of 2006 which has previously been amended by an order of the 20^th of January last year in 5102 of 2011.  The present application is to the court to authorise a permissible change, in this regard: There are a couple of further changes.

The original proposal was for reconfiguration of one lot into 211. It’s not surprising that experience on the ground and mature considerations have led to revision of details of the proposal. The traffic issue, already mentioned, aside, the developer has found a way to increase the lot yield by 16 to 227, but in such a discrete way that it is not easy to appreciate without close examination how the extra lots have been designed in; the footprint of the proposal will not change. The changes are comfortably within the concept of permissible change in section 367 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. 

The court includes in the order, provision that consent of the owners of the land to the proposed change is not required, pursuant to section 371(e). The property is being developed in stages which, in consequence of the division of stage 4, are, under present arrangements entered to under the new arrangements approved today, no longer seven stages, but instead are 8, a change in the circumstances amounting to permissible change as well.

The absence of comprehensive owners consent is attributable to the inconvenience of having to obtain written consents from the large number of owners now potentially involved.  Stage 1 has been developed.  35 new owners are registered in respect of sites there and other sites under contract.  In such circumstances, I’m comfortable in not requiring multiple consents, given the specific nature of the changes, which it seems to me are not likely to be of concern or even interest to the current owners.  Compare Tom Dooley Developments v Brisbane City Council (2649 of 2004) reported at [2004] QPEC 095; [2005] QPELR 645 and Broadwater, Cairns Group Pty Ltd v Tablelands Regional Council [2011] QPEC 005, and RSA (Moorvale Station) Pty Ltd v Isaac Regional Council [2010] QPEC 147, in which consents obtained by use of powers of attorney were produced. Order as per initialled draft. Thank you.

______________________