PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Mergler v Redland City Council [2011] QPEC 88
PARTIES:
STEVEN MERGLER
(Appellant)V
REDLAND CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
3296 of 2009
DIVISION:
Appellate
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Planning & Environment Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
30 June 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8, 9 June 2011 (Following site inspection 7 June 2011)
JUDGE:
Robin QC DCJ
ORDER:
Appeal dismissed subject to variation of easement terms
CATCHWORDS:
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 s 345
Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 3.5.30, s 4.1.27(1)(b), s 4.1.47, s 4.1.50
Appeal by developer against condition of a development approval requiring dedication of an easement for drainage purposes – easement shown in development application document – whether it constituted part of the proposal rather than an appealable condition – whether easement condition unreasonable or irrelevant because need for it allegedly arose from roadworks previously done by Council – or because mapping and the surveys it was based on may be inaccurate – or because it may not be needed forever – or because it precluded self-help by owner of site to place fill which would keep polluted surface run-off off the site – approved house already substantially constructed notwithstanding the appeal’s being undetermined.
COUNSEL:
Mr M. J. Doolan (town planner) represented the appellant
Mr S. M. Ure for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Mr M. J. Doolan (town planner) agent for the appellant
Redland Council Legal Services for the respondent
This is an appeal under s 4.1.27(1)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) filed on 18 November 2009 seeking removal of the following condition from a development approval granted by the respondent Council on the appellant’s application for a material change of use for the construction of a dwelling house at 106 Beelong Street, Macleay Island, a 1,143 m2 parcel on the inland side of Beelong Street:
“7.0 Drainage Easement
7.1A drainage easement is required over the subject allotment to provide for stormwater drainage. The easement shall be as indicated on Council’s Drawing Number A2-B097-2 attached. Written agreement from the owner of the allotment must be received prior to the commencement of building works, to allow Council to survey and register the easement at the Titles Office. Please be advised that all costs relating to the easement will be borne by Council. (Please find attached an Easement Consent Form).
7.2There must be no man made obstruction to overland flow placed in the easement, no installation involving concrete, brick or other permanent materials or any earthworks without the express written permission of Council, with the exception of up to three (3) 100mmx100mm RHS columns to provide support for the front deck as shown in the SE Elevation Plan in approved plan 09/364 dated 05/10/2009.”
Beelong Street is an extension along the northern tip and then proceeding along the eastern side of the island as a continuation by a 90º curve to the south of Coondooroopa Drive which tracks the western side of the island in this area. The court…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Mergler v Redland 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 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the easement condition was part of the proposal or an appealable condition, and if it was an appealable condition, whether it was unreasonable or irrelevant. The court had to consider the arguments put forward by the developer and the evidence presented to determine these issues.
The court found that the easement condition was part of the proposal, not an appealable condition. The court also found that even if it were an appealable condition, it was not unreasonable or irrelevant. The court held that the need for the easement arose from the development itself, not from roadworks done by the Council, and that the mapping and surveys were accurate. The court also held that the easement may be needed forever, and that it did not preclude the owner of the site from taking reasonable steps to manage surface run-off. The court dismissed the appeal but ordered that the terms of the easement be varied to allow the owner of the site to place fill to keep polluted surface run-off off the site.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed subject to variation of easement terms
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.