Wolf v Brisbane City Council

[2011] QPEC 43

[2011] QPEC 43

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN

P & E Appeal No 2456 of 2010

PETER WOLF	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Respondent
and
MET DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD	Co-Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 04/03/2011

..DAY 1

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Sustainable Planning act 2009 s 350
Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.52(2)(a)

Adverse submitter appeal - changes to reduce impacts on the appellant (who raised privacy concerns) considered by court to be "minor change"
HIS HONOUR:  The court makes an order in terms of the
initialled draft.

It resolves Mr Wolf's appeal against the Council’s having
granted a development permit for material change of use for
four single unit dwellings and reconfiguration of a
lot (namely, two into four) - also preliminary approval to carry out building work for four single unit dwellings.

The co-respondent developer's site is at 38 and 40 Emperor
Street, Annerley.  The appellant’s home is in Juliette
Street, and backs on to the site.  The appeal is resolved in a way that attends, to an extent, to his concerns about privacy.

The changes unsurprisingly, in those circumstances, are ones
which the court can be satisfied are "minor change" for the
purpose of section 350 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009
having regard to section 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Integrated
Planning Act 1997.

The order recites the court's satisfaction to that effect.
Mr Hayes' affidavit, filed on the 1st of March 2011,
identifies the changes.  There are two existing dwellings in
the street.  A new house will be erected to the rear of each
of them.

There is to be a reduction in height of about 800 millimetres,
although I understood Mr Hayes' comments in court today to
indicate the reduction might be something less.  It's been
achieved by the reduction in height of a concrete platform or
podium on which the new houses are to be constructed.  They
will now be built on concrete slabs rather than 400
millimetre-high posts as set out in paragraph A of the
affidavit.

The carport between proposed house three and proposed house
four, along Mr Wolf's boundary, is to be moved away from the
fence.

Once again, there is a discrepancy that I can't understand
between Mr Hayes' figure in paragraph 12(c) and the figure that Ms Mitchell indicated of 900 millimetres.  That change allows for a further change by way of introduction of mature
evergreen trees, at least three metres high, along the
boundary in that location.

The upstairs bathroom and house windows adjacent to Mr Wolf's
boundary are to be screened as detailed on the revised plans.

In addition, the acoustic fence along Mr Wolf's boundary,
adjacent to his house, is to be increased in height to 2.1
metres.

-----