Kluge v Brisbane City Council

[2001] QPEC 9

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT OF

QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Kluge and Another –v- Brisbane City Council and Another [2001] QPE 009
PARTIES:	Maurice Rex Kluge and Catherine Elizabeth Kluge

Appellants

AND

Brisbane City Council

Respondent

AND

Brisbane Montessori School

Co-Respondent

FILE NO:	D3754 of 2000
DIVISION:	Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING
COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20.2.01
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22nd, 23rd January, 2001.
JUDGE:	Judge R.D. Pack
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	Town Planning Appeal against respondent Council’s approval to allow construction of an Administration Building and Carpark at a local school
COUNSEL:	Mr. Kluge for the Appellants Mr. Trotter for the Respondent Mr. Hughes for the Co-Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Brisbane City Legal Practice for the Respondent Connor O’Meara for the Co-Respondent

1.   This appeal has been instituted against the respondent’s approval of an

application to permit:

(1)	the erection of a new administration building, and
(2)	an erection of a car park (82 cars)

2.   The co-respondent’s school complex is located at 60 Mactier Street, Fig

Tree Pocket, having been so located since 1988 . The site is irregular in

shape with a 258 metre frontage to Mactier Street and a 237.5 metre

frontage to Fig Tree Pocket Road. Its location is shown in Figure 1 in

Exhibit 2. The irregularity in shape is shown in Figure 2 Exhibit 2. The

land slopes gently in a south westerly direction. It generally flattens out in

the areas of the proposed development. Contours of the land and

proposed landscaping are shown on Figure 3(b) in Exhibit 2. Details of

the layout of the school are to be found in Exhibit 2 Figure 3(a). Its mode

of operation is to be found in the material placed before the Court in

Exhibit 7 and the evidence of the school principal, Mr Kloeden. The school

leases the subject land from the Respondent Council. There are two ten

year options which give the capacity to the school to extend from the year

2015. The subject land is described as Lot 114 on RP818257, with an

area of 6.919 hectares.

3.   The school caters for children in three age groups described as cycles, the

first cycle being for children aged between three and six. It is required a

parent or carer bringing a child to or collecting a child from a classroom to

have the child signed in and out of the classroom.

4. The present enrolment of pupils total 284.

5.   The enrolments in cycle 1 are 148 children and in cycle 2 are 78 children.

Cycle 2 children are in the six to nine years age group. Almost 80% of the

current school population are therefore at an age that traffic sense in a

safety context is not refined.

6.   The school is located on land which was originally subdivided for

residential purposes. The road infrastructure was in place before the

school was built. This means that up to the present time the traffic has

had the capacity to circulate through the school grounds as illustrated in

the documentation. The school committee has had safety concerns for the

children particularly since the road infrastructure divides classrooms and

sporting and recreational areas. It is proposed to close the present access

road to all but emergency traffic, such as fire service or ambulance

services.

7.   It can be seen that up to the present time the traffic flow into and out of the

school along one part of the length of Mactier Street will be similar to that

which will apply after the changes but in so far as the Appellants and Mr

and Mrs McCarrison are concerned, there will be a significantly increased

traffic flow in front of their residences on Mactier Street. The traffic impact

has been addressed by expert evidence, in Exhibits 5 and 10. The traffic

flow will approximately double to 800 vehicle movements per day. Testing

has shown excessive speed is not problematical in Mactier Street. The

Appellants have concerns that changes will create an even greater

temptation for parents or carers to drop off children in cycle one on Mactier

Street. That is because there is a little further to travel to the proposed parking area. No doubt for safety reasons parents will be encouraged to

use the new parking area. There appears to me to be very little difference

between the distance parents or carers will be required to walk to deliver

and pick up the cycle 1 children to and from the classroom. The significant

traffic flow will be at times when children are delivered to the school and

collected, punctuated by significantly lesser flows of traffic during school

vacations.

8.   There are 33 permanent and seven casual staff at the school. The parking

proposal of 82 parking spaces is on the evidence adequate for the

school’s present needs and will be adequate for a period into the future.

9.   The proposed administration block is a single story structure of 348 square

metres. It is proposed that it will provide offices for the principal, the

business manager, a staff room, a meeting room and reception area. It is

proposed that the present administration building will be put to use as a

library facility. The existing administration is somewhat cramped and there

is a clear need for a new or extended facility.

10.The location of the proposed car park and administration building are

defined on drawing 9913 to be found on page 18 of Exhibit 2. The existing

internal road to which I have made earlier reference is shown on the

following page.

11.Since initial construction of the school (illustrated by the photograph which

is Exhibit 1 taken soon after the initial construction), there has been

significant extensive attractive landscaping. As can be seen, extensive

landscaping is proposed to be associated with the new work.

12. On page 23 is an extract from the Brisbane town plan.

13.Between the subject land and the Brisbane River, is an open space zone,

and to the north of Mactier Street which includes the appellant’s residence

in the residential A zone, some of that land being zoned as future urban.

The application was lodged and approved by the Respondent a relatively

short time before the city plan came into force on the 30th day of October,

2000. The 1987 Town Plan (as amended) was in force at material times.

Several earlier successful development applications had been made to

Council. As can be seen illustrated in Figure 7 in Exhibit 2, the subject

land is in the sports and recreation zone, as is the Jewish Kindergarten

and pony club areas to the left of the subject land as one looks at it from

Fig Tree Pocket Road. An educational establishment is one of a large

range of uses permissible in the Sport and Recreation Zone. Council is

required to consider inter alia, ingress and egress to the site, parking,

landscaping and the impact of the proposal on existing and future amenity

of the adjoining sites. Vehicular traffic impacts is a relevant consideration.

The subject land remains similarly zoned under the city plan, but that plan

indicates “education purposes” are “generally inappropriate” with impact

assessment required. Inter alia, the city plan indicates a need to

demonstrate that development is within reasonable expectations, amenity

is not adversely affected including safety, traffic, and noise considerations.

The establishment of schools is not envisaged under the city plan.

14.The disputed issues in this appeal were determined antecedent to the

hearing on 6th October last. They refer to that as listed in paragraphs 2.1

to 2.7 of the Notice of Appeal.

15. In essence the grounds of appeal relate to:

(a) An allegation the proposal is contrary to relevant planning

provisions;

(b) Carparking access will lead to overdevelopment of the site;

(c) Traffic problems and safety considerations will arise particularly

in Mactier Street;

(d) There will be an adverse impact upon existing development in

the area, having regard to the character and scale of the

proposals;

(e) Preparation of the Local Area Plan for Fig Tree Pocket will be

compromised.

16.The school is now well established. Pupil numbers are expected to rise

gradually, at least for the foreseeable future.

17.The proposals are not planned to cater for any influx of students but they

are designed to better service staff and the existing enrolment.

18.The administration building is to be constructed of painted plywood with a

non-reflective metal sheeting on the roof. That is one of the conditions. A

further condition requires that a landscape management plan and site
works be submitted for approval. Further a planting plan and supporting

documentation is required. A further condition requires that the approved

development including landscaping and parking be maintained in

accordance with approved drawings. The hours and days for construction

work are also limited.

19.The current assessed needs for parking at the school are for 60 carparking

spaces and eight set-down spaces.

20.At the hearing of the appeal, it appeared that the size of the carpark in

terms of visual impact was the major concern for the appellants in this

context. Because of the fall of the land and vegetation, the visual impact

will, I think, be shielded from Mactier Street and it is clear that because of

existing vegetation and buildings, it is shielded from Fig Tree Pocket Road.

To a lesser extent the same considerations apply to the proposed building.

The proposed building is compatible and complementary to the style of

the existing school facilities.

21.Noise considerations were addressed in evidence and a report from Mr

Kamst.

22.The only planning, traffic, architectural, and noise evidence in this appeal

came in the form of oral evidence and reports called on behalf of either the

Respondent or Co-Respondent.

23.The Appellants have no hostility to the Co-Respondent and have

articulated their genuine concerns competently. I thought the focus of their

concern was the increased traffic flow as it may affect the safety of their children and school children in Mactier Street, and to a lesser extent the

adverse affect on visual amenity.

24. I think the Respondent and Co-Respondent has more than adequately

addressed all environmental, amenity, traffic, safety considerations in the

evidence in support of the proposals. I have no doubt that the proposal

will precipitate a higher level of safety within the school grounds as a result

of the closure to general traffic of present access.

25.Whilst it would have been possible to achieve similar objects by creating

the access from Fig Tree Pocket Road, and it may be necessary to

consider such a proposal at a later date, there is no basis on the evidence

to conclude either the parking or building proposal should be disallowed.

26.In the result I am satisfied that each proposal should proceed without