Hart v Gold Coast City Council (No. 2)

[2009] QPEC 118

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hart and Ors v Gold Coast City Council and Another (No. 2) [2009] QPEC 118

PARTIES:

IRENE HART, FRANCIS HART, MADGE PEARSON, FAY CLARK AND EVAN KEDDIE
Appellants

v

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL
Respondent

And

ARPLAN
Co-respondent

FILE NO:

Appeal No. 628 of 08

PROCEEDING:

Submitters Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATES:

23 and 24 November 2009

JUDGE:

C.F. Wall Q.C.

ORDER:

Appeal Dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – PLANNING LAW – PLANNING SCHEME – Southport Local Area Plan – Old Southport residential precinct – application to convert old residential dwelling to office – impact assessable – whether application consistent with planning scheme – density, commercial development in residential area – traffic – character of existing residential area.

COUNSEL

J Lyons – Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Self Represented – Appellants
McDonald Balanda and Associates – Respondent
Self Represented – Co-Respondent, Mr G Gillard

HIS HONOUR:  The subject land is situated on the corner of Stevens St and Worendo Street, Southport.  Its address is 60 Stevens Street.  The submitter appellants live next door in Worendo Street.  They objected to the co-respondent's application for a development permit for a material change of use for an office and a detached two-storey dwelling.  The respondent approved the application with conditions. 

A single storey dwelling house is located on the land and the application involves converting the house to an office, initially for an accountant, but not restricted to such occupation.  That part of the application is impact assessable and is the subject of the appeal.  The other part of the application involves the construction of the two-storey dwelling on the balance of the land.  This dwelling was described by Mr Gillard at the inspection as a townhouse.  That part of the application is code assessable and is not part of this appeal.  Sometimes this difference confused the appellants and some of their objections related to the proposed townhouse.

Notwithstanding that the onus of proof is on the co‑respondent, the appellants' task was made difficult by the fact that town planners for the respondent and co-respondent (Stephen Buhmann and Ross Heatley respectively) supported the application and the appellants had no town planning evidence to the contrary.  They relied on a detailed statement by Ms Irene Hart, one of the appellants, dated the 20th of November 2009, Exhibit 15.  The joint report of the town planners is in Exhibit 4 at pages B1-15.

Stevens Street is a busy main traffic route in the area; Worendo Street is quieter.  The surrounding area consists generally of detached residential dwellings.  It is generally residential, not commercial.  The proposal in both its aspects is not an overdevelopment of the land and is consistent with the established development density for the area.  The land is subject to the Southport Local Area Plan and is in Precinct 9 (Residential), RC(a) (Old Southport Residential).

Each of the town planners gave evidence, and I accept what they said in evidence and the opinions expressed by them in their joint report.

For the reasons given by them:-

(a)In total, the proposed development is not an overdevelopment of the site or of a density which is inconsistent or non-complimentary with the established low density character of Old Southport Residential, nor will it be inconsistent with the existing character of the area.  Relevant site density criteria are satisfied.  The proposed total development is, in fact, lower than the maximum density allowed in the area.

(b)The proposed development will not introduce an unacceptable commercial component, the office, into a predominantly residential area with resultant adverse amenity impacts.  The office will be low impact, carried on in a building which will continue to appear residential and be only open between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday to Friday.  Any associated traffic and parking will not adversely impact on the residences in the vicinity.

The character of RC(a) will not be eroded by the type of office which is proposed.  Realistically, the surrounding residential character of the area will be preserved and the office will retain its appearance as an old house, albeit with a renovated and modernised appearance.  It will, to use the language of the local area plan, be "conserved, renovated and recycled" as a modern interpretation of the existing dwelling.

The existing house will only be marginally extended to better accommodate the office, and new access on the Stevens Street side, which is to be emphasised by appropriate signage, is proposed for visitors.

The office component of the proposed development is included in Part A of the Table of Development of the Local Area Plan for Precinct 9, and, subject to meeting the relevant assessment criteria, which I am satisfied it does, it is considered an appropriate use in the area.  Part A envisages as impact assessable development offices located at ground level of a residential dwelling.

(c)The proposed development is not an inappropriate development for the location or inconsistent with any planning scheme provisions.  An office located in a building such as the present is allowed, subject to impact assessment.  The present proposal retains the residential character of the area and complies with the local area plan.  An office within a renovated residential dwelling is consistent with the character of the area.  It is not an unnecessary or incompatible commercial use, nor will it occur in an inappropriate location.  Mr Buhmann said the renovated building will retain many of its current features, and he agreed that the only thing that would distinguish it from any other house would be Stevens Street signage and the small car park.

(d)Traffic likely to be generated by the office will be limited and not of an unacceptable level.  Staff are likely to use the parking spaces, and there is ample parking available on Stevens Street adjacent to the site.  The main entry to the office will be from Stevens Street and signs should make that apparent.  I think it unlikely that traffic generated by the office will have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the area.  The on‑site car parking proposed is not inadequate and is in accordance with planning scheme requirements.

(e)The proposed development does not conflict with the planning Scheme.  On the contrary, its character is consistent with what the scheme seeks to achieve for this type of development.  The development does not result in any unacceptable impacts on the local area or local residential amenity.  The present dwelling house is a pre‑1950's building and the preferred character for the Old Southport Residential Precinct envisages that future development will conserve, renovate and recycle pre‑1950's buildings where possible and practical, and be compatible with and enhance the traditional character of the area's townscape and streetscape where possible and appropriate.

I am satisfied that this proposal achieves these objectives and is not inconsistent with the character of the existing residential areas.  If any site in the Old Southport Residential Precinct suits a development such as is proposed here it is a site on Stevens Street because of its busy through traffic character.

The co-respondent has submitted a modified office floor plan, drawing number A-DA-10-02D, (which is also part of the joint town planning report), which reduces the on-site car parking spaces from six to five.  The respondent agrees with this change, and, in fact, initiated it.  The appellants expressed no view, opposing the entire proposal.  In terms of section 4.1.52(2)(b), this is, in my view, only a minor change to the application.  Relevant conditions in the development approval will need to be amended accordingly.

For the reasons I have given, the appeal will be dismissed.