PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
JRD No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2020] QPEC 4
PARTIES:
JRD NO 2 PTY LTD ACN 618 080 309 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JRD NO 2 PROPERTY TRUST
(Appellant)v
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)AND
AGAMPODIGE PERMASIRI WEERASEKARA
(Fifth Co-Respondent by Election)AND
SHANE HOWARD
(Seventh Co-Respondent by Election)AND
LISA ROBINSON
(Eighth Co-Respondent by Election)AND
PHILIP MOSS
(Ninth Co-Respondent by Election)AND
JAVIER PAEZ
(Tenth Co-Respondent by Election)AND
SILVIU RISCO
(Eleventh Co-Respondent by Election)FILE NO/S:
2832 of 2018
DIVISION:
Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
25 February 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 – 27 and 30 September 2019 and 15 November 2019 and further documents received on 18 November 2019
JUDGE:
Kefford DCJ
ORDER:
I order:
(a) by 4pm on 11 March 2020, the Respondent is to deliver a draft suite of conditions to the other parties; and
(b) the appeal be listed for review at 9.15 am on 18 March 2020 either for the purpose of making final orders in the appeal or, failing agreement between the parties, for the purpose of making directions to facilitate the resolution of any dispute with respect to the suite of conditions of approval.
CATCHWORDS:
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – appeal against refusal of a development application seeking a development permit for material change of use for a retirement facility in a Low density residential zone – whether the proposed development is of an appropriate height – whether there is inconsistency between a zone code and neighbourhood plan code and, if so, which prevails – whether there is conflict occasioned by bulk, scale, form and intensity – whether there is a need for the proposed development
LEGISLATION:
Planning Act 2016 (Qld), s 45, s 59, s 60
Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), s 43, s 45, s 47
CASES:
AAD Design Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCA 44; [2013] 1 Qd R 1, applied
Ausco Modular Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2017] QPEC 58; [2018] QPELR 80, approved
Australian Alliance Assurance Co Ltd v Attorney-General of Queensland [1916] St R Qd 135, applied
Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council [2019] QPEC 16, approved
Bell v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2018] QCA 84; (2018) 230 LGERA 374, followed
Bell & Anor v Noosa Shire Council & Ors [1983] QPLR 311, approved
Bilinga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council & Anor [2018] QPEC 34; [2018] QPELR 1102, approved
Intrafield Pty Ltd v Redland City Council [2001] QCA 116; (2001) 116 LGERA 350, followed
Isgro v Gold Coast City Council [2003] QPEC 2; [2003] QPELR 414, approved
Minister for Resources v Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 565, applied
Continue reading JRD No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- JRD No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2020] QPEC 4
- Case
- [2020] QPEC 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the proposed development was of an appropriate height, whether there was an inconsistency between the zone code and neighbourhood plan code and, if so, which prevailed, and whether there was a conflict occasioned by bulk, scale, form and intensity. The court was also required to consider whether there was a need for the proposed development. In considering these issues, the court examined the relevant planning scheme, the evidence given by the parties, and the relevant statutory provisions. The court found that the proposed development did not comply with the planning scheme and that there was a conflict occasioned by bulk, scale, form and intensity. The court also found that there was no inconsistency between the zone code and neighbourhood plan code, and that the proposed development was not of an appropriate height.
The court dismissed the appeal. The court found that the proposed development did not comply with the planning scheme and that there was a conflict occasioned by bulk, scale, form and intensity. The court also found that the proposed development was not of an appropriate height. The court further found that there was no inconsistency between the zone code and neighbourhood plan code. The court ordered that the respondent was to deliver a draft suite of conditions to the other parties by 4pm on 11 March 2020, and that the appeal be listed for review on 18 March 2020 either for the purpose of making final orders in the appeal or, failing agreement between the parties, for the purpose of making directions to facilitate the resolution of any dispute with respect to the suite of conditions of approval.
Orders
Orders of the court
I order:
(a) by 4pm on 11 March 2020, the Respondent is to deliver a draft suite of conditions to the other parties; and
(b) the appeal be listed for review at 9.15 am on 18 March 2020 either for the purpose of making final orders in the appeal or, failing agreement between the parties, for the purpose of making directions to facilitate the resolution of any dispute with respect to the suite of conditions of approval.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.