Noskoff & Anor v. Brisbane City Council

[2009] QPEC 122

[2009] QPEC 122

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 141 of 2008

LYUBA NOSKOFF and PAUL NOSKOFF       Appellants

and

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL and OTHERS     Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 1/10/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: 

Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.52(2)(b)

Where one of 3 proposed new houses on a corner site was to be located 75cm closer to the street and another 250mm lower because of deeper excavation - the change (reducing impacts on the adverse submitter appellant) was "minor"

HIS HONOUR:  The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which resolves this adverse submitter appeal by approving the co-respondent's proposed development, slightly changed from what was originally proposed and publicly notified.

The Court, by the order, declares itself satisfied that changes to the development application are only minor change as a preliminary to allowing the appeal in part and changing conditions.

A single residence on the site, which is at the corner of Kingsley Parade and Kadumba Street, Yeronga, is to be demolished and replaced by three single dwellings.  The proposal created concern in the appellants who own the property immediately to the west in Kadumba Street.

The changes will reduce the threatened impact on the amenity of their land which the proposal bodes to have.

Dwelling number three which faces Kingsley Parade, and is away from Kadumba Street, is to be moved some 75 centimetres closer to Kingsley Parade, that is, away from the Noskoff property.

Proposed dwelling number 1 is immediately adjacent to the Noskoff property and parallel to number 2, both having frontages to Kadumba Street.

The overall height of dwelling number 1 is to be reduced by excavation by a further 250 millimetres.  The only change likely to be noticed by anyone, apart from the beneficial ones from the appellants' point of view, is that house number 3 will be closer to Kingsley Parade, more or less aligned with number 2. 

This seems to me a matter not of concern.  So far as is known, the only adverse submitters were the Noskoffs.  It is difficult to imagine that any person who did not make submission in relation to the proposal as notified would be motivated by the change to put one in.

So, for purpose of section 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Act, the Court's satisfied that the declaration ought to be made.

-----