Scott v Tablelands Regional Council
[2013] QPEC 33
•20 June 2013
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Scott v Tablelands Regional Council [2013] QPEC 33
PARTIES:
GRANT SCOTT
(Appellant)
v
TABLELANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
100/2013
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Planning and Environment Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
20 June 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
20 June 2013
JUDGE:
Everson DCJ
ORDER:
- Application Dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – APPLICATION –application to change certain conditions of development approval – whether change to the approval would be likely to cause a person to make a properly made submission objecting to the proposed change
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), s 367
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
Miller Bou-Samra for the Appellant
P & E Law for the Respondent
HIS HONOUR: This is an application pursuant to s 367 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) (“SPA”).
The applicant seeks to change certain conditions of a development permit which resulted from a judgment of this court on 27 August 2008 approving an 88 lot subdivision at Yungaburra on the Atherton Tableland.
Essentially, what is sought is to reduce the number of accesses to the subdivision from three to two by creating a cul de sac where the proposed development would have provided access into Eacham Road. The remaining accesses are to Park Avenue in the north and via the existing Lillipilli Lane to Barrine Road in the west.
In the planning report dated 17 April 2003 which is provided in support of the application, it is readily conceded that the changes proposed will result in a 12.5 per cent increase in traffic along Lillipilli Lane.
The current legislative regime has made changes to development approvals easier to obtain. However, both local governments and the court need to be cognisant of the requirement in s 367(1)(c) of SPA that the change to the approval would not “be likely, in the responsible entity’s opinion, to cause a person to make a properly made submission objecting to the proposed change, if the circumstances allowed”.
The court needs to be careful to ensure that the rights of prospective submitters are not lightly abrogated by giving insufficient weight to this requirement.
In my view an application pursuant to s 367 of SPA which seeks to significantly alter traffic flows in the region of a prospective development is likely to fail to satisfy this requirement. On the facts before me, I simply cannot be satisfied that such a significant change to the proposed access for this development would not be likely to cause a person to make a submission objecting to the proposed change.
I therefore dismiss the application.
______________________
0
0
1