Ward v Caboolture Shire Council and Hawken Drive Pty Ltd

[2000] QPEC 39

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Ward v Caboolture Shire Council & Hawken Drive Pty Ltd [2000] QPE 039
PARTIES:	FRANK CHARLES WARD                Appellant And CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL  Respondent And HAWKEN DRIVE PTY LTD (ACN 074 002 823)  Co-Respondent
FILE NO/S:	Appeal 1041 of 2000
DIVISION:	Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	July 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
JUDGE:	Judge Quirk
ORDER:
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:

1. In this matter the appellant was a submitter in respect of a successful application for a material change of use of land at Deception Bay.  The land occupies an area of 14.5 hectares and has frontage to Webster Road, George Street and Bay Avenue and, in the relevant town planning scheme, is included in the “Special Rural” zone.

1. The proposal has been described as an “over 50’s mature age village (relocatable home park)” and, as that description suggests, involved an integrated development providing multiple sites upon which relocatable homes can be placed.  Appropriate arrangements for landscaping, open space and recreational areas are in place. 

1. The proposal is fully described in material before the court.  It was conditionally approved by the respondent council and the appeal is against that approval. 

1. Two issues were identified by the appellant and were;

(1)          The major impact of the layout of the development on the movement of traffic from one side of Deception Bay to the other indefinitely into the future and

(2)          The impact on Deception Bay’s town centre of the extremely small 200 square metre home sites and the fact that 290 of them are packed tightly together without relief.

In the course of evidence Mr Ward also raised some concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety.

1. That the land is suitable for the proposed development in terms of its physical characteristics and relevant planning controls,  is not seriously disputed.  The special rural zone is identified as a holding zone to cater for the expansion of the urban areas consistently with the Strategic Plan.

1. The Strategic Plan has designated the land as part of a residential area which is intended

“To provide a variety of housing and accommodation types in order to ensure that all sections of the community are cater for with regards to their residential needs” (Objective 9)

1. The council has a local planning policy dealing with the locational criteria for relocatable home parks and the proposal is in conformity with this policy.

1. The first of the grounds raised focused on the interruption to the continuity of the esplanade which the subject land, in its undeveloped state, constitutes.  A link across the land to provide such continuity was argued for by Mr Ward.

1. It must be understood however, that aside from the subject land, there are other interruptions to that continuity and this is (perhaps understandably)  consistent with the council’s traffic planning for the area.  Reference was made to the absence of any council strategy for a continuous esplanade.

1. Evidence was given by Mr Holland (a traffic engineering consultant) of the undesirable impact (in traffic engineering terms) of providing a link across the subject land for through traffic.  Apart from the detriment to the amenity of the development itself (which was described by town planning consultant Mr Smith) such a link could result in the introduction of through traffic into areas from which it is now absent and bring about operational and traffic safety problems.  These were explained by Mr Holland in his evidence.  Dr Porter (an environmental consultant) added that such a link would also have unwelcome environmental impact upon this sensitive area on the shores of Deception Bay.

1. I accept the evidence of these experts but even if this had not been the case I do not believe that it would have been a reasonable response to this proposal to call for (as a condition of its approval) the provision of such a link for through traffic.  Mr Ward wondered whether use of any link could be usefully restricted but, on the evidence, I see no practical way of achieving this.

1. While our attention is upon traffic matters, I refer to other concerns raised by Mr Ward about traffic conditions existing in Bay Terrace in the area of the shopping centre and possible exacerbation of those difficulties by this proposal.  Mr Holland dealt with these matters in his evidence.  He found that site distances and the separation of possible points of conflict were adequate and that these concerns lacked any real substance.

1. In the second of the grounds raised by the appellant the suggestion was that the configuration and proposed allotments sizes would be such as to provide an amenity unsuitable for the area.  At the time of the application performance standards relevant to development of this kind were found in a By-law (Chapter 14).  As well as complying with these standards the proposal allowed a site density and greater buffering than the standards contemplate.  Mr Ward however, seemed to prefer generally larger allotment sizes (and the provision of the landscaping on those allotments) to the larger allocations for open space and buffering that the proposal intends. 

1. I appreciate that this is a matter of taste, but, having heard the careful evidence of Mr O’Brien (an experienced landscaping consultant) on the proposals likely visual impact I would not be prepared to reject it on that basis.  Mr O’Brien demonstrated that some apprehensions had by Mr Ward as to the likely presentation of the development from the esplanade involved misunderstanding. As he explained it is a matter of perspective and he demonstrated in his evidence the extent to which the development would be visible from that area.

1. The benefits of a relatively large consolidation of open space and recreational areas were explained and the advantages gained in an environmental sense were described in the evidence of Dr Porter.

1. On the whole of the evidence I am well satisfied that the proposed development is worthy of approval and that the onus of showing this has been discharged by the respondent Hawken Drive Pty Ltd.  Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.