SRG Management Services Pty Ltd v. Gold Coast City Council & Ors (No 2)
[2009] QPEC 46
•15 May 2009
[2009] QPEC 46
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Appeal No 392 of 2008
| SRG MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD | Appellant |
| and | |
| GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL and CC TRADERS PTY LTD and LATTISON PTY LTD | Respondent Co-Respondent Co-Respondent |
BRISBANE
..DATE 15/05/2009
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 s4.1.52 - for purposes of the Court being able to deal with a submitter appeal, changes to the location within a large site of 3 of 4 buildings of 13 units each to be further from the appellant's boundary (with consequences for the location of a driveway and the size of a recreation area and stormwater drainage area) held minor change.
HIS HONOUR: The appellant is on the verge of achieving a modest success in this adverse submitter appeal. It represents a retirement village development to the south of the co-respondent developer's site. One aspect of the complaints about the development was the closeness of three buildings of four proposed, for the largest, by far, of the three lots the mother-site is to be reconfigured into - each of the four buildings to contain about 13 apartments on a number of levels. Concern was held that the buildings were located so close to the common boundary that they would be inappropriately dominating. The retirement village raised privacy issues and the like.
The parties are to be congratulated for resolving the issues in the appeal, which are not limited to the appellant's amenity, in that there are some traffic issues, and in addition, a flooding - or surface waters issue, which is of particular concern to the Council.
The proposed buildings are not to be changed, but they'll be now relocated further away from the common boundary by distances varying from something in excess of one metre, to something well in excess of two metres. That will allow for landscaping on the site, more screening and reduce the extent to which residents on the appellant's site are aware of their new neighbours.
The parties, despite their efforts in recent days, are not yet ready with a completed conditions package which will embody the common ground the parties have reached and be presented for the Court's approval.
Useful progress can be made today in obtaining the Court's authority under section 4.1.52 of Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), for the appeal to proceed on the basis of the development application being changed.
There was one change which occurred as a result of Council requirement, imposed in the decision notice following public notification of the proposal, relating to relocation of the access to the site. The four-building complex is to be located at the rear of it, the two small lots on Pine Ridge Road are to be created in the re-configuration. Those were proposed to be located along one boundary of the site, access to the large area to accommodate the multi-building development to be by means of a driveway along the pole of a hatchet-shaped block, the Council's requirement was for that access to be located more centrally along on the site's frontage, so that what are called lots 1 and 2, the house lots to be created, would be one on each side.
It's necessary, as a matter of caution, I think, for the Court to compare what's now proposed not only with the development as defined in the Council's decision notice, but with that which was publicly notified. Neither exercise produced any concern from the point of view of understanding the changes as minor change for purposes of the relevant IPA provision.
There has been a further change in respect of the driveway location, and that is rendered necessary by the relocation of buildings "B", "C", and "D" further from the appellant's boundary. The driveway itself will be pushed a little further to the north. That has consequences of its own. It reduces the area of the site to be devoted to the Community Titles Scheme for shared recreational purposes, but not so that it falls below the 25 per cent benchmark set by the planning scheme. There appears to be a reduction in width of the sealed surface - that's of no concern in the opinion of the traffic engineer, Mr Holland, on the basis (which is in accordance with the present proposal) that the verges of the narrowed, sealed surface are grass, or something of a similar driver-friendly nature.
The relocation of the road affects the stormwater management arrangements as well, by confining the proposed swale arrangements. The Court has before it evidence of Mr Sauermann to the effect that the change doesn’t give rise to any issues in respect of the ability of the development to meet the water quality and quantity outcomes required by the relevant approved stormwater management plan.
For purposes of section 4.1.52, "minor change" has its everyday meaning, although decisions of the Court indicate that on occasions it might be useful to have some reference to the definition of the term in schedule 10 of the IPA, which is there to serve other purposes, for example, to explain section 3.5.24. Whatever approach might be taken, I am satisfied that the Court's dealing with no more than a minor change here; essentially the exercise is one of confining more effectively within the development site the impacts of it, which is probably in the general public interest as well as those of the appellant, and residents on its site. The changes would not be obvious from the street.
I've initialled a draft order, giving effect to the conclusions expressed, which provides for the appeal to proceed on the basis of what is now proposed. Progress continues to be made towards a final resolution. The Council now, I understand, has satisfied itself that in agreeing to resolve the appeal it is entitled to rely on a delegation rather than have to await some meeting of Council or a committee when room could be found on the agenda. It appears to be a case now of waiting for the familiar conditions package to eventuate. The appeal will be adjourned until a day next week when that's available.
...
HIS HONOUR: So, paragraph 2 will be, the appeal will be adjourned to Friday, 22 May 2009, with liberty to the parties to bring it on earlier for the purpose of the final order being made. That's for paragraph 2.6. Okay. That is per draft, again.
(NOTE: On that day an order finally disposing of the appeal was made).
-----
0
0
0