Sanchi Developments Pty Ltd v. Brisbane City Council

[2010] QPEC 107

[2010] QPEC 107

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 1964 of 2010

SANCHI DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD	Applicant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/09/2010

..DAY 1

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 369

Development approval constituted by a court order changed to take account of demolition which exceeded what the order permitted - changed approval intended to lead to reinstatement as nearly as possible of what had been wrongly demolished

HIS HONOUR: This is an unusual application under section 369

of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 to change a development

approval which is constituted by an order made by me in appeal

592 of 2006 on 21st of February 2008.  That had co-respondents

as parties who objected to the developer's proposal to erect a

new residence in the backyard of an existing one in Hardgrave

Road, West End.  The appeal, which was by the developer, was

allowed.

Unfortunately, contractors' actions exceeded what the court's

approval permitted by way of partial demolition of the

existing residence fronting Hardgrave Road.  In particular,

they demolished two bedrooms at the front of the existing

house immediately behind the front veranda.  That produced a

lacuna in the sense that the approval didn't authorise the

construction of anything to fill in the now empty space.

The court hears that the Council has issued orders in the

interim requiring the making safe of the structure etc.

But work on implementing the approval has not been able to

proceed.

Essentially the change to the approval which is sought under

section 369 simply serves to regularise matters by

acknowledging that the demolition has happened.  It authorises

new construction on a basis which is intended to restore what

has been demolished by use of recycled weatherboard and the

like.

The court expressed concern as to the interest of the former

co-respondents, but it's clear in the circumstances that

what is occurring close to the Hardgrave Road frontage really

doesn't affect their interests in any relevant way.  The

development is going to be the same one which the court

approved on the 21st of February 2008.  I order in terms of

the initialled draft.

-----