Sutgold Pty Ltd v Redland City Council

Case

[2009] QPEC 123

23 October 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

[2009] QPEC 123

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 741 of 2009

SUTGOLD PTY LTD   Appellant
(ACN 083 212 006)

and

REDLAND CITY COUNCIL                  Respondent

and

CHIEF EXECUTIVE,  Co-Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS

..BRISBANE

..23/10/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.52(2)(b)

Minor change where Main Roads requirement of dedications leads to redesign of subdivision and ultimately additional lots - reduced park provision remains generous and satisfies planning scheme expectations

HIS HONOUR:  The Court makes an order by consent of the parties which resolves this conditions appeal in respect of a code-assessable development for a reconfiguration or subdivision.  A minor change is involved.  In fact, there have been two changes since the application was filed, the first flowing from a requirement of the Department of Transport and Main Roads of an 8 metre dedication along the Cleveland-Redland Bay Road frontage site.  That produced a reduction from the 40 lots proposed to 37 in what's called the intermediate plan.

...

HIS HONOUR:  The developer has been able to accommodate additional lots so that the total lots available to accommodate households wishing to move to the area will be 43.  That doesn't change the footprint of the development save that internally there's been some reduction acceptable to the Council in the provision of park area.  What is to be provided remains generous and also sees fully implemented the planning scheme expectations for the area.

The change ought to be assessed as minor for purposes of Section 4.1.52 (2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The draft order, which I've signed, resolves the conditions appeal by allowing it on conditions incorporated in the order. It recites to the Court's satisfaction that the change is minor.

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0