Rowley v Caloundra City Council

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rowley v Caloundra City Council [2008] QPEC 99

PARTIES:

REGINALD CHARLES ROWLEY

and

BERNICE ANN ROWLEY

(Appellants)

v

CALOUNDRA CITY COUNCIL

(Respondent)

and

DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS

(Co-respondent)

FILE NO/S:

281 of 2007

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

13 November 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 - 10 September 2008

JUDGE:

Searles DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal dismissed re condition 37;

2.   Appeal allowed re conditions 5.2, 5.3, 11;

3.   Matter adjourned to permit the resolutions of appropriate conditions.     

COUNSEL:

S. Keim SC & C. Klease – Appellant

S. Ure – Respondent

SOLICITORS:

P&E Law – Appellant

DLA Phillips Fox – Respondent

1. This is an appeal against the imposition of certain conditions by the respondent Council in respect of its approval of a code assessable reconfiguration of Lot 1 SP145632 situated by 345 Pierce Avenue, Bells Creek, containing an area of 16.968 hectares.

1. The land falls within Caloundra South Planning Area[1] and within the Core Industry Precinct.[2]  It forms part of the Urban Footprint in the South East Queensland Regional Plan and is within the Caloundra Regional Business and Industry Park earmarked in the Caloundra City Plan 2004 (City Plan).  Adjoining the northern section of the subject site and immediately to its east is a tract of land owned by the Department of State Development and Innovation (DSDI) over which approval has been granted for the staged development of a large industrial subdivision, the construction of which has commenced.

   [1]See map CCC2, p. 4-2 of City Plan

   [2]See map CSP1, p. 4-9 of City Plan

1. The site runs north to south from Pierce Avenue and has four components:

1.          The northern portion containing 4.418 hectares and comprising 20 lots, 19 industrial lots and one utility lot (pump station );

2.          A second area of 4.486 hectares proposed as an environmental park;

3.          A third portion of 2.729 hectares being proposed Lot 21, a single industrial lot proposed to be connected to the other industrial lots in the northern section of the site by Extended Road 2 along the eastern boundary which, together with Road 1, on the northern boundary, comprises 1.53 hectares.

4.          Finally, in the most southern part of the land, an area of 3.805 hectares also proposed as an environmental park.[3]

[3]See Exhibit 7

1. The application for Development Approval for reconfiguration of the land was made on 6 October 2005[4] and a Response to an Information Request was lodged by the Appellants in or about 2 March 2007[5] providing the amended plan of development[6] upon which this appeal proceeded.

   [4]See Acknowledgement Notice 19 October 2005 Exhibit 1 Volume 1 p. 276 and a Response to Information Request

   [5]Exhibit 1 Volume 2 p. 299

   [6]Exhibit 7

1. By Decision Notice of 29 October 2007 the respondent approved the Development Application subject to 49 assessment manager conditions and three concurrent agency conditions.[7]  There is no issue regarding the latter conditions.  The Appellants appealed 21 of the former conditions…