LitBit Pty Ltd v. Brisbane City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

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

  1. This is an appeal against the Council’s deemed refusal of a development application (superseded planning scheme) which the appellant lodged on 29 June 2007.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.

  1. 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.

  1. The Demolition Code in Brisbane’s City Plan 2000 by its terms applies in assessing building work for the…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] QPEC 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were LitBit Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Brisbane City Council, the respondent. The dispute centred on the deemed refusal of a permit for the demolition or removal of a pre-1946 character house. The house had already been partly demolished, relocated on site, raised, and altered but was left unfinished. The appellant sought to have the house demolished or removed, but the council refused the permit, deeming it a refusal. The case was heard by the Queensland Planning and Environment Court.

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.