Ko v Brisbane City Council

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ko v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2018] QPEC 35

PARTIES:

SUSAN KO

(Appellant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(Respondent)

and

ROBYN STUDLEY

(Co-respondent by election)

FILE NO/S:

1065/17

DIVISION:

Planning & Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning & Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 July 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 and 13 June 2018

JUDGE:

Williamson QC DCJ

ORDER:

I will hear from the parties as to further orders.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – appeal against refusal of an application for a material change of use for Multiple dwelling in the LMR zone – whether development is located within easy walking distance of a public transport node  – whether a decision to approve would conflict with City Plan 2014 – whether sufficient grounds to approve despite conflict.

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

COUNSEL:

Planning Act 2016, s.311

Sustainable Planning Act 2009, ss. 326, 461 and 493

Bell v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2018] QCA 84

Bilinga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2018] QPEC 34

Gaven Developments Pty Ltd v Scenic Rim Regional Council & Ors [2010] QPELR 750

Gracemere Surveying & Planning Consultants v Peak Downs Shire Council &Ors [2009] QCA 237

Grosser v Council of the City of Gold Coast (2001) 117 LGERA 153

Jakel Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2018] QPEC 21

Lake Maroona Pty Ltd v Gladstone Regional Council [2017] QPEC 25

Plafaire Projects Australia Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Maroochy and Anor [1991] QPLR 87

Petty & Ors v Brisbane City Council [2018] QPEC 2

Sia & Anor v Brisbane City Council [2009] QPELR 551

J Dillon for the Appellant

N Loos for the Respondent

J Hewson for the Co-respondent by election

SOLICITORS:

Galleon Law Group for the Appellant

City Legal for the Respondent

Jason Nott Solicitors for the Co-respondent by election

Introduction

1. In February 2016, the Appellant made an application to the Respondent (“the Council”) for approval to redevelop land situated at 29 Fairy Street, Moorooka (“the subject land”).  The form of the development proposed comprised a three storey Multiple dwelling with four units. The application was impact assessable and attracted three adverse properly made submissions.  One of the submissions received was made on behalf of the Co-respondent by election.  She owns a unit in a development on adjoining land to the south of the subject land.

1. On 24 February 2017, the Council’s delegate decided to refuse the development application. The Appellant exercised her right of appeal under s.461(1)(a) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (“SPA”) against that refusal. As the Appeal was commenced, but not ended prior to the enactment of the Planning Act 2016, SPA continues to apply[1].

   [1]s.311(2) of the Planning Act 2016.

1. The development refused by the Respondent was designed with double garages located on the ground floor of each unit. The garages were accessed via a driveway running parallel to the northern…