PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Leach & Ors v Brisbane City Council [2011] QPEC 55
PARTIES:
Janet Leach, David Morris and Yvana Jones
(Appellants)V
Brisbane City Council
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
BD 2475 of 2010
DIVISION:
Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
8 February 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
31Janurary 2011
JUDGE:
Searles DCJ
ORDER:
APPEAL ALLOWED
CATCHWORDS:
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – DEMOLITION CODE – whether the demolition will result in the loss of traditional building character.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – DEMOLITION CODE – whether the building contributes positively to the visual character of the street.
COUNSEL:
S.M URE – Appellant
T.Trotter – Respondent
SOLICITORS:
Appellant – HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Respondent – Brisbane City Legal Practice
Nature of the appeal
The appellant’s appeal pursuant to s 461 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) against the refusal by the Council of a Development Application dated 18 June 2010 for the preliminary approval for building work for the demolition of two pre-1946 houses situated at 5-11 Orleigh Street, West End being lots 113, 114, 115 and 240 on RP10977. They have a total area of 1545sqm, are classified as Low-Medium Density Residential under City Plan 2000 and are within a Demolition Controlled Precinct within the City Plan. Pursuant to s 493 of SPA the appellants bear the onus of proof.
Orleigh Street runs in an east-west direction between Montague Road to the west and Hoogley Street to the east. It is separated from the Brisbane River by Orleigh Park and the Ferry Terminal and City Glider Bus service shelter located at the eastern end of Orleigh Street. At the western end of Orleigh Street at its corner with Hoogley Street there is a vacant allotment on No. 1-1A Orleigh Street.
The Houses
No. 5 Orleigh Street is the first house at the eastern end of Orleigh Street and abuts vacant allotment No. 1-1A Orleigh Street. It is a pre-1946 double gabled house with a verandah which has been enclosed some time after it was built. It has weatherboard wall sheeting and a corrugated iron sheeted roof. There is a corrugated iron sheeted roof over the main front window which has hoods over it. The side windows have traditional hoods sheeted with corrugated iron. The house is raised on stumps and battened under, has a central core with attached verandah characteristic of timber and tin houses.
The second house at 9-11 Orleigh Street is also a traditional timber and tin double gable house with a central core and attached verandahs which have been enclosed. It is raised on stumps with battening underneath. The gable and pitched roofs are sheeted with corrugated iron. Both the double hung window at the front and the side windows have traditional corrugated iron hoods.[1]
[1] Veal Report Exhibit 4 paras 3.2; Macdonald Report Exhibit 3 paragraph 3.2 (Agreement that subject houses are traditional “timber and tin”
Submitters
The application resulted in 25 submissions and a petition containing some 160 signatures.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Leach v Brisbane City Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] QPEC 55
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Queensland Planning Act 2016 and the Demolition Code. Specifically, the court had to determine if the demolition would compromise the character of the area and if the building held aesthetic value to the streetscape. The applicant argued that the building was not of significant character and that the demolition would not adversely affect the street's visual character. Conversely, the Council argued that the building was integral to the precinct's character and that its removal would negatively impact the street's visual appeal.
The court found that the building did not hold significant traditional building character and that its removal would not detrimentally affect the street's visual character. The court based its decision on evidence presented regarding the building's historical and aesthetic value, concluding that the applicant's proposed demolition did not contravene the relevant planning provisions. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Council's decision to refuse the demolition application.
The final order of the court was that the appeal be allowed, and the Council's decision to refuse the demolition application be set aside. This ruling permits the applicant to proceed with the proposed demolition, subject to compliance with any additional conditions or requirements imposed by the court or relevant authorities.
Orders
Orders of the court
APPEAL ALLOWED
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.