O'Connor v Brisbane City Council

[2011] QPEC 111

[2011] QPEC 111

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P& E Appeal No 2444 of 2010

O'CONNOR & ANOTHER	Appellants
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL & OTHERS	Respondents

BRISBANE

..DATE 29/07/2011

ORDER

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

Adverse submitter appeal in respect of approval for multi-unit dwelling in a low-medium residential density area allowed by consent - "minor changes" ameliorated impacts near the boundary - additional time allowed for service of notice of the appeal on the concurrence agency
HIS HONOUR:  The court will make an order in terms of the initialled draft resolving this adverse submitter appeal in respect of the co-respondent’s obtaining a development approval for a multi-unit development.

...

HIS HONOUR: The site for proposal is at the corner of Eliza Lane and Sandgate Road. The appellants are local people who had the opportunity to submit because all applications for multi-unit development in a low medium residential area are impact assessable. The parties have resolved their differences on the basis of changes to the proposal which, on any view, are minor, in particular for purposes of section 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. A refuse storage and collection area is moved further from a side boundary of the property and to be enclosed at what would otherwise have been the open end by a roller door. Additional trees are to be provided along the boundary. In addition, there is a new plan providing detail that wasn't previously documented of the location of stormwater drainage.

The other parties, who are self-represented, are no doubt grateful to Ms Mitchell, representing the Council, who has piloted this morning's hearing through to a successful conclusion.  One of the aspects, apart from the minor change, one that concerns the court, is the necessity to extend time for service of notice of the appeal on the concurrence agency, Department of Transport and Main Roads.  The appellants overlooked that obligation which was eventually complied with on the 10th of May this year.  It ought to have been complied with by 28th of August last year.  The Department has had ample time to show an interest in the proceeding and not done so.

-----