Huntingdale (Queensland) Pty Ltd v. Hervey Bay City Council

[2007] QPEC 45

[2007] QPEC 045

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No BD386 of 2005

HUNTINGDALE (Queensland) PTY LTD	Appellant
and
HERVEY BAY CITY COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/02/2007

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1999 s 4.1.52(2)(b) - "minor change" only where a subdivision was reduced from 77 lots to 62 in a similar layout but with increased provision of open space.

HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. It resolves a developer's appeal against a deemed refusal of an application for a sub-division on the basis of a conditions package the parties have agreed to. The Court, having previously expressed satisfaction with formal matters as to public notification and service, must now be satisfied that certain changes to the development proposal which have doubtless been the basis for the Council's changing its stance represent minor change for the purposes of section 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997.

It is necessary for the Court to note that not only reference to the original plans compared with the development application and to the revised plans included in the draft order must be had, but also reference to the plans as they were at the time of public notification.  Following some suggestions by the Council at that early stage there were changes made. 

The layout at the time of public notification, rather than having at the heart of the site what might be called a circular road with another road running through the middle, east to west, was changed by deletion of the eastern side so that, disregarding a prong heading north (which has always been proposed), the road pattern had the appearance of a capital E.  Connectivity at the eastern end was provided by a series of drainage reserves.  There was a reduction in number of lots proposed from 78 to 77. 

The changes in the latest plans are more wide-ranging.  On the eastern side there will be either a road or direct access to an open space area.  In the largest of the "blocks" of the layout where there is no road at the eastern end there is substitution of a north-south road running through that block which faces a pathway giving access to a new open space area across the south of the sub-division. 

There is a significant increase in open space on the eastern boundary of the area to be developed.  The number of lots to be provided reduces from 77 to 62.  Those changes in part, Mr Webb says, have been indicated to be advisable as a fuller understanding of the drainage considerations has been obtained. 

Although if reference is had to matters of scale, measurement et cetera, there may be found here significant changes, all of them go to reduce the impacts of the proposed development.  It would be hard to find here that there is any feature of it that has been omitted which might have led somebody contemplating making an adverse submission not to do so in expectation of some particular benefit which is no longer proposed. 

From the point of view of providing as many sites in the local government area as possible for people to build homes on, I suppose there is a significant change in the reduction of lots, but my own approach, and that indicated in the authorities Mr Webb reminded me of, is that the Court is fairly ready to assess changes that reduce impacts as minor.  I do not have any difficulty in reaching a conclusion in that vein this morning. 

The changes as summarised in paragraph 9 of Mr McKay's affidavit, in my opinion, whether considered separately or together, represent minor change within the meaning of the section.

So, orders as per initialled draft. 

-----