James v Brisbane City Council

[2007] QPEC 130

[2007] QPEC 130

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 156 of 2007

SHARON JAMES	Applicant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Respondent
and
KEN RYAN AND ASSOCIATES PTY LTD	Co-Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 08/11/2007
ORDER

Catchwords
Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.52(2)(b) - changes to
development proposal declared "minor" for second time in
appeal - comparison to be made with the approved plans, rather
than with them as changed previously.
HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the

1

initialled draft. A feature calling for comment is the
Court's declaring its satisfaction that "the appeal can
proceed on the basis of changes to the development
application" in accordance with section 4.1.52(2)(b)of the

Integrated Planning Act 1997.	10
The changes, which are explained in the affidavit of Kenneth
Allan Ryan filed yesterday, are to a development described as a "Carwash-Café", which has been of concern to neighbours who have brought this appeal. They are cumulative upon changes	20
already the subject of a similar declaration by the Court as to its satisfaction.
It would seem obvious that the comparison to be made by the
Court today is not with the changed application, but with the	30
approved plans. If it were not so, there might be a series of minor changes accepted by the Court under the relevant purposes, whose cumulative effect was something more than minor.
40
The respondent Council and the appellant accept that the
changes now proposed constitute minor change on the foregoing
basis. Mr Haydon has been careful to make it clear that the
only effect of that is to permit the appeal to proceed on the
basis of the changed plans. There is no concession by his	50

clients that the changes make the development proposal
acceptable.
It is nonetheless incumbent on the Court to reach the point of 2 ORDER 60

1

satisfaction. That is not difficult, as the following summary
of the changes would indicate. There is now a further
reduction to the GFA of the café. There is a further
reduction in the number of parking spaces to be provided, and

some reconfiguration of the parking area.	10
An ancillary office is to be relocated without any change in
size. The egress from the site, which takes its access from
Wynnum Road, is to Bennetts Road, and that is to be widened
from five metres to seven. Certain plant is to be relocated	20
from the southern side of the proposal, near to residential allotments, to the eastern side near Burnetts Road. There is a similar relocation of WC facilities.
There has been a relocation of the traffic flow on the site	30
from Wynnum Road to the wash area on the south. There is a
reduction from three metres to two of landscaping proposed to
the southern boundary of the land. That particular change
might be of concern, were it not for the attitude of the
respondent and co-respondents. The change is associated with	40
the provision of new fencing.
There are new arrangements proposed which will enclose
operations that might previously have occurred more in the
open, and the addition of chevrons to assist traffic flow.	50

3 ORDER 60

An existing house on the site is no longer to be relocated.

1

It will remain where it is, but be raised subject to a relatively modest maximum building height of RL8.150.

Individually and collectively, those changes could be

appreciated as ameliorating or attenuating the impacts of the	10
proposal, so that the declarations sought can be made.
Orders per initialled draft.

-----	20
30
40
50

4 ORDER 60