PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
LitBit Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2008] QPEC 74
PARTIES:
LITBIT PTY LTD (ACN 010 273 695)
(Appellant)
v
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
3585 of 2007
DIVISION:
Appellate
PROCEEDING:
Applicant’s Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
16 October 2008
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATES:
22, 23 September 2008
JUDGE:
Robin QC
ORDER:
Appeal allowed
CATCHWORDS:
Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.27(1)(e)– Brisbane City Plan 2000, Demolition code –
Developer appeal against deemed refusal of permit for demolition or removal of a pre-1946 character house – house already partly demolished, relocated on site pursuant to earlier approval obtained by a prior owner, raised and altered but left unfinished – held that demolition of the building will not result in the loss of traditional building character within the street in the relevant section of it.COUNSEL:
S Fynes-Clinton for the appellant
T Trotter for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Robert Milne Legal for the appellant
Brisbane City Legal Practice for the respondent
This is an appeal against the Council’s deemed refusal of a development application (superseded planning scheme) which the appellant lodged on 29 June 2007. The appellant sought a development permit for the carrying out of building work and operational work in the demolition or removal of a house on land at 97 Linton Street, Kangaroo Point located in the Demolition Control Precinct.
Linton Street runs between Main Street and Wellington Road one block north of Vulture Street. Looking to the south, construction on the Brisbane Cricket Ground (office tower, stadium and lighting towers) looms large in the outlook; looking west so does the Telstra building at the southern corner of Main Street and Linton Street. The latter, like parallel streets to the north (Princess Street and Toohey Street), is bisected by Duke Street, running north-south. The Demolition Control Precinct does not incorporate any properties with a frontage to Vulture Street or Wellington Road (even such properties designated low-medium density residential in what is otherwise a sea of Medium Density Residential). The Demolition Control Precinct comprises a solid swathe from the southern side of Linton Street extending north for a number of blocks. On the western side of Duke Street, south of Linton Street, five parcels are in the precinct, the corner one and two each adjoining in Linton Street and Duke Street. If Figure 1 in Mr O’Brien’s report is right, although the western block north of Toohey Street is in the Demolition Control Precinct, the two blocks to the south are not, although the more southerly one (with the exception of “light industry” on Main Street) is all Character Residential (like all of the locality away from the main roads) and has no less than nine properties designated HC as an indication of special recognition. That designation is replicated on some sites north of Toohey Street which are in the Demolition Control Precinct.
The Demolition Code in Brisbane’s City Plan 2000 by its terms applies in assessing building work for the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read LitBit Pty Ltd 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
- [2008] QPEC 74
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the Integrated Planning Act 1997, specifically section 4.1.27(1)(e), and the Brisbane City Plan 2000, Demolition code. The court had to determine whether the demolition of the house would result in the loss of traditional building character within the street in the relevant section of it. The court also had to consider whether the council's refusal of the permit was valid under the relevant legislation.
The court found that the demolition of the house would not result in the loss of traditional building character within the street in the relevant section of it. The court also found that the council's refusal of the permit was valid under the relevant legislation. However, the court allowed the appeal, finding that the council's decision was unreasonable. The court found that the appellant had demonstrated that the demolition of the house would not result in the loss of traditional building character within the street in the relevant section of it.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and the council's refusal of the permit was quashed. The court found that the appellant had demonstrated that the demolition of the house would not result in the loss of traditional building character within the street in the relevant section of it. The court also found that the council's decision was unreasonable, and the appellant was entitled to the permit for the demolition or removal of the house.
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.