Scott v Brisbane City Council

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Scott & Ors v Brisbane City Council [2014] QPEC 11

PARTIES:

SCOTT AND OTHERS
(Appellants)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)

and

PROSRL PTY LTD (ACN 159 369 454)
(Co-Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2717/13

DIVISION:

Planning & Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning & Environment Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 to 19 December 2013

JUDGE:

Searles DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT – PLANNING – Submitter appeal by local residents against the Council’s approval of a development application by the Co-Respondent for the development of a 33 unit Multi Unit Dwelling development, being a 33 townhouse development spread over 10 buildings at 5 Darien Street, Bridgeman Downs.

COUNSEL:

Appellant: M Williamson

Respondent: J Lyons

Co-Respondent: S Ure

SOLICITORS:

Appellant: Connor O’Meara

Respondent: BCLP

Co-Respondent: HWL Ebsworth 

Table of Contents

Application

Submitters
Council decision
Proposed development
Minor change
Site and Locality

Site

Locality

Issues in dispute
Statutory Framework
Planning Scheme – City Plan – Relevant Provisions
Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs) and Strategies for the City
Residential Neighbourhood
McDowall/Bridgeman Downs Local Plan
Potential Development Areas
Emerging Community Area
Level of assessment – Structure Planning Code
Residential Design – Low-Density Character and Low-medium Density Code
Draft City Plan
Principles of interpretation of Planning Schemes
Examination of issues in dispute

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
NOTICE OF APPEAL ITEMS
Alleged conflict with Emerging Community DEOs
Joint Planning Report

A. Alleged conflict with City Plan
Is there a conflict with Emerging Community DEOs
Alleged conflict with McDowall/Bridgman Downs Local Plan (MBDLP)
Mr Buckley’s Opinion in Joint Report
Response of Mr Keirpal and Mr Mulcahy re Local Plan
Conclusion re alleged conflict with Local Plan
Alleged conflict with Structure Planning Code
Absence of Structure Plan
Appellants’ Planner’s opinion re absence of Structure Plan
Applicants’ Planners’ response re alleged conflict with Structure Planning Code
Response to absence of Structure Plan
Discussion re Structure Plan
Conclusion re Structure Code
Alleged conflict with Residential Design – Low Density, Character & Low-Medium Density Code

Purpose
Performance Criteria of Character & Low-Medium Density Code
Appellants’ Planner’s opinion re Residential Design – Low Density Character and Low-Medium Density Code
Response of Applicants’ Planners re Residential Design – Low Density, Character & Low-Medium Density Code
Conclusion re alleged breach of Character and Low-Medium Density Code
Generally Inappropriate Development
Appellants’ Planner’s opinion re generally inappropriate development
Applicant’s and Council’s Planners’ Response to generally Inappropriate Development Allegations
Conclusion re generally inappropriate development
Visual Amenity and Character – Report A Chenoweth, December 2013

B – Traffic
Joint Traffic Report
Mr Viney’s (Appellants) opinion – Joint Traffic Report
Mr Holland’s (Applicant) Opinion – Joint Traffic Report
Mr Beard’s (Council) opinion – Joint Traffic Report
Mr Viney Individual Report
Mr Holland – Individual Traffic Report
Mr Beard – Individual Traffic Report
Conclusion re Traffic and Parking

Parking

C – Need
Report – Mr J Norling on Economic and Planning Need
Discussion re need
Conclusion re Need
New draft City Plan
Overall conclusions