Highfields Land Pty Ltd v Crows Nest Shire Council

[2006] QPEC 81

[2006] QPEC 081

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 1797 of 2005

HIGHFIELDS LAND PTY LTD	Appellant
and
CROWS NEST SHIRE COUNCIL	Respondent
and
STATE OF QUEENSLAND	Co-Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 26/05/2006

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.52(2)(b) - "minor change" where applicant abandoned request for preliminary approval to facilitate later subdivision of that part of the site not the subject of application for immediate development of 85 residential lots - other changes by way of improved road layout (including increased area devoted to roads, without any increase in lot yield) considered "minor change"

HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. It has the effect of resolving the appeal by allowing it in part. The Court adopts, in the order, a document setting conditions which bring in a new plan for an 85 lot residential subdivision. There are two aspects the Court should be concerned with today as to compliance with the formal Integrated Planning Act requirements. Those are the subject of Judge Wilson's order of the 17th of June 2005.

Today, the Court needs to be satisfied, for the purposes of section 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Act, that the changes in the appellant's proposal represent minor change. There is one change which, from his client's point of view, Mr Ellerman characterises as "major". This relates to the abandonment by the developer of its application for a preliminary approval which would facilitate subdivision of lands to the west of the immediately proposed subdivision.

Given that this change to the overall application represents a freeing of the relevant land from any impacts of development, it can fairly be regarded as minor.  Otherwise, there has been some redesign of the subdivision to provide better road connection without sacrificing any of the 85 lots proposed.  There is an increase in the "project site area from
16.97 hectares to 17.88 hectares", as Mr Ferros puts it in his affidavit. 

This is associated with a road provision, in particular a proposed Franke Road on the western boundary of the area to be subdivided under the approval.  Mr Ellerman has explained that investigations have revealed more about the topography and rendered advisable the incorporation of what is referred to as a "bulge" in the curve representing the western boundary of the development area.  There is no increase in the number of lots.  The Court is satisfied the changes represent minor change and makes an order in terms of the initialled draft.

‑‑‑‑‑