JRD No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors

JRD No 2 Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision of the Brisbane City Council to refuse their development application for a material change of use for a retirement facility. The application was refused on the basis that the proposed development did not comply with the requirements of the planning scheme. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Planning and Environment Court. The appellants argued that the proposed development was of an appropriate height, that there was no inconsistency between the zone code and neighbourhood plan code, and that the proposed development was not of a conflicting bulk, scale, form and intensity. The appellants further argued that there was a need for the proposed development.

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.