Rynah Pty Ltd v. Gold Coast City Council

[2007] QDC 161

[2007] QDC 161

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 2281 of 2006

RYNAH PTY LTD	Applicant
and
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 11/07/2007

ORDER

Catchwords
Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 3.5.33(1)(b). Circumstances where "no assessable development" would arise from changes to conditions in a development approval contributed by an earlier order of the Court.

HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. The matter requiring the attention of the Court in the submission of Mr Nelms which he makes out of an abundance of caution is whether section 3.5.33 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 applies. Representing the Council, Mr Everson concedes that, to quote sub-section 1(b), "no assessable development would arise from the change" of development conditions embodied in an order made by Judge Wilson on the 6th of October 2006 which incorporates a development approval.

In this context one would be inclined to accord the assessment manager's view - more precisely, the view of the Council as original assessment manager - that there is no assessable development and the changes considerable weight.  However, I respect Mr Nelms' cautious approach that the matter ought to be drawn to the Court's attention so that it can make its own judgment. 

The principal changes affect parking provision.  There has been removed from the proposal as approved by the Court a total of six car parks.  Three of those are in one location where six "angle parks" are to be replaced by three parallel parks.  Another two parking places are lost to permit relocation of some mechanical plant and a single car space of rather eccentric parallelogram shape elsewhere is being dispensed with as well.

The development is in close proximity to a large public car park.  In accordance with hallowed tradition, the reduction in car park provisions in the development will be compensated for by the making of monetary contributions to the Council, which is happy to receive them.  A closer look at the contributions as calculated initially has apparently revealed an excessive contribution was then required, so, the additional monetary contributions which the developer must make now are limited to those for two spaces. 

The remaining change is to the design of a few steps giving access to the premises; they will now be "rounded", rather than straight.

I am comfortably satisfied that the section applies and that the Court should make the order requested. 

-----