The Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Bayside Branch (Qld) Inc v. Redland Shire Council

[2007] QPEC 16

[2007] QPEC 016

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P&E Appeal No 312 of 2006

THE WILDLIFE PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF
QUEENSLAND BAYSIDE BRANCH (QLD) INC                Appellant

and

REDLAND SHIRE COUNCIL  Respondent

and

HERITAGE PROPERTIES PTY LTD
(ACN 010 754 953)  Co-Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/02/2007

ORDER
CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act s4.1.52(2)(b) - adverse submitter appeal - "minor change" where (in gestures responding to appellant's concerns) a proposed subdivision was scaled down.

HIS HONOUR: The parties should be congratulated for resolving what otherwise would have been a very lengthy and costly appeal. There will be a development permit for the first stage of a large residential subdivision, a preliminary approval for the balance. The resolution makes changes to the subdivision proposed and imposes on the Court the obligation to be satisfied under section 4.1.52 (2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 that any change is a minor change.

The parties agree in this respect.  Reference has been made to some authorities.  It seems to be me obvious in contexts such as the present where the changes reduce the footprint of the development - and here that is done with a substantial benefit to the koala population of the area - the Court may more readily find itself satisfied the change is minor.  Those comments are not intended to suggest that what happens here is anything else bar that.  The impacts of the development will be ameliorated from the point of view of the appellant's interest, one focussing on koalas - for example, the end two lots of 39 proposed at this stage will not be developed.

The Court is comfortably satisfied the changes now adopted represent minor change.  In assessing that question the Court has to consider whether the changed application might have attracted submissions which the advertised one did not.  Exhibit 2 which differs from the Council approved plans has been tendered to show what those who were moved to inquire about the application would have learned about it on going to the Council.

It is against Exhibit 2, rather than the approved plans, that the Court should decide the question entrusted to it.  Either way, it is satisfied that the change is minor and that an order should be made in terms of the initialled draft which the parties have been able to agree is suitable from their respective points of view.

‑‑‑‑‑