PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Sia & Anor v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2009] QPEC 8
PARTIES:
HEATHER SIA, IAN HARRISON SMITH, ANNETTE DEBORAH (TAN) SMITH, NORMAN LOVE, DARREN JOHN BUCHANAN, ALEX CALLEGARI, RICHARD ANNING, PAUL LAMB, MERCER PHELPS, PATRICIA EADE, GERALD McCONNELL, JANINE McCONNELL
Appellantsv
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
Respondentand
CBD LAND PTY LTD
Co-Respondentand
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Co-Respondent by ElectionFILE NO/S:
2269/2008
DIVISION:
Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:
Submitter Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
20 March 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 February 2009
JUDGE:
Searles DCJ
ORDER:
1. Appeal dismissed
2. Application approved.
3. Appeal adjourned to permit the Council and the co-respondent to finalize appropriate conditions of approval.
CATCHWORDS:
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – Application for residential development in light industrial area – whether proposed development conflicted with City Plan – character , amenity of area, height, scale and bulk of proposal – whether near public transport – interpretation of Bulimba District Local Plan
Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld)
Parcel One Pty Ltd & Ors v Ipswich City Council & Ors (2007) QPELR 474
Baptist Union of Queensland v Brisbane City Council (2003) QPELR 61
COUNSEL:
Appellants – B. Cronin
Respondent – B. Job
Co-Respondent – M. Williamson
SOLICITORS:
Appellants – McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Respondent – Brisbane City Legal Practice
Co-Respondent – MacDonnells Law
Introduction
This is a submitter appeal against the Council’s decision to approve a development application for a material change of use for 35 multi-unit dwellings at 125 Bulimba Street, Bulimba, Brisbane. The co-respondent by election (EPA) was excused from active participation in the appeal by order of Judge Rackemann on 17 October 2008.
The subject land comprises six lots, Lots 15, 23, 25, 26, 81 and 84 on RP 87060. The total area is 4,150 m2 and each lot is roughly the same size, namely 691.66 m2.[1]The proposed 35 unit development comprises 11 two-storey townhouses and 24 apartments within what the respondent and co-respondent say is a three-storey building but which the appellants say is four-storey. The proposed plot ratio is .75.
[1]Transcript 2.27.8
The land is presently within the Light Industry Area under the City Plan although it is common ground the clear preference of the Scheme is that, upon cessation of industrial activity area, the land be developed for residential use.
Locality
The land has access from both Bulimba Street and Banya Street immediately to the east. Immediately to the north of the site are existing industrial buildings and to the north of those buildings, still within the Light Industry Area are 12 new detached houses built by the present co-respondent.
In Banya Street across the road and to the north-east of the site are two further large industrial buildings between Banya Street and Johnson Street. To the north and being the last street short of the Brisbane River is McConnell Street which dog legs into Byron Street. Relevantly, there is a Light Industrial Area between McConnell…
Continue reading Sia & Anor v. Brisbane City Council & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sia v Brisbane City Council [2009] QPEC 8
- Case
- [2009] QPEC 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to interpret the Bulimba District Local Plan and determine whether the proposed residential development conflicted with the City Plan. The legal issues included the compatibility of the development with the surrounding area, the character and amenity of the neighbourhood, and the height, scale, and bulk of the proposal. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the development was near public transport as per the requirements of the Bulimba District Local Plan.
The court found that the proposed residential development was consistent with the Bulimba District Local Plan and did not conflict with the City Plan. The court determined that the development would not negatively impact the character, amenity, height, scale, and bulk of the surrounding area. The court also found that the development was in proximity to public transport, as required by the Bulimba District Local Plan. The appeal was dismissed, and the application was approved. The appeal was adjourned to allow the Council and the co-respondent to finalize appropriate conditions of approval.
The court's decision highlights the importance of interpreting local plans and ensuring that proposed developments align with the City Plan. The court's approval of the residential development in a light industrial zone demonstrates the flexibility of the planning system to accommodate changing land use needs while maintaining the character and amenity of the surrounding area.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed
2. Application approved.
3. Appeal adjourned to permit the Council and the co-respondent to finalize appropriate conditions of approval.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.