S&L Developments Pty Ltd v. Sunshine Coast Regional Council

[2009] QPEC 74

[2009] QPEC 74

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 55 of 2009

S&L DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD  
(ACN 089 625 347) 

and

KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES

Appellant

No Role

and

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL

Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 20/07/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.52(2)(b) - no concern about "minor change" where a code assessable development application proposed signage of certain heights - developer appeal against conditions of Council's approval setting lower limits - agreement reached in mediation at intermediate levels - order made allowing appeal accordingly

HIS HONOUR:  The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which allows a developer appeal.  The only issue in the appeal concerned the dimensions of signage; four large signs were proposed by the developer in different locations:  three 10 metres in height, one 6 metres in height.  The Council, in approving the development application, limited the heights to 7.5 metres for the three taller signs and 5 metres for the other.  Mediation has proved effective.  In the agreed terms one sees the Council preserving its position in respect of the smallest of the signs but yielding to a greater or lesser extent in respect of the others - in no case to 10 metres. 

Mr Connor drew the Court's attention to a possible "minor change" issue, given that in respect of three of the signs, the structures to be erected will exceed in heights that the Council had approved pursuant to the Code Assessable Development Application made by the appellant. 

The Council has been supplanted as decision-maker by the court. This is not a situation in which an approval is being changed or in which the court is asked to change conditions set by it. Reference to section 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 shows that the comparison to be made is of the Development Application as finally adjudicated upon by the court and the Development Application as originally made. The Council's decision need not be referred to in that situation. The proposal being code assessable, the court doesn't have the concern it might harbour in an impact assessable application about possible submitters. Order as per initialled draft.

‑‑‑‑‑