Hartridge v Caboolture Shire Council

[2010] QPEC 101

[2010] QPEC 101

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 20 of 2008

LEWIS JOHN HARTRIDGE	Appellant
and
CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL & ANOR	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/09/2010

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Developer appeal allowed on basis of "minor change" reducing lot yield and development footprint of proposed residential subdivision - no consideration given to supposed issues that had been raised (but were no longer pursued) respecting the South-East Queensland Regional Plan

HIS HONOUR:  The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft.

It has the effect of allowing the developer's appeal in part.  It does not recite that the court is satisfied that changes to the development proposal since the public notification represent only minor changes such that the appeal should be allowed to proceed on the basis of the changed application. 
Nonetheless, the court has considered those changes; the effect of which is to reduce the development footprint.

As a matter of history, the plans publicly notified indicated a lot yield one greater than that in the plan that accompanied the development application, but the relevant comparison is between the notified plan and the current one which reduces lot yield from 44 to 34, the lots varying in size from 3,000 square metres to a maximum of 17.73 hectares, formerly 3.764 hectares.  The average lot area has nearly doubled from 5,425 square metres to 1.205 hectares.  The length of new road proposed reduces from 1,020 metres to 917 metres.

The changes reflect provision of a much larger park or buffer area along the east of the large site.  There is now to be no development east of the northern section of Hudson Way where formerly there were to be nine lots accessed by two cul-de-sacs.

The larger lots further to the south along the road have building envelopes which will confine development to close within the frontage, except for the most southerly one which will extend along Bentley Road to the eastern boundary of the site.  The others are now to be of much reduced depth, increasing the size of the buffer area and, indeed, there are only five such lots now, not six.  Those changes represent minor change.

The parties, which include as well as the appellant developer an adverse submitter and the council, had formerly been concerned with issues to do with the South-East Queensland Regional Plan which had been thought to present a possible difficulty in the way of approval of the proposal.  It may well be that the changes made affect that situation.  No party is interested in pursuing those issues this morning.

It ought be made clear that the court has given no consideration to potential issues the Plan may give rise to and doing so would seem pointless when neither the respondent nor co-respondent persists in any concerns that might have earlier been harboured on this score.

So, order as per initialled draft.

‑‑‑‑‑