Earthteck Qld Pty Ltd v Redland City Council [2022] QPEC 25

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Earthteck Qld Pty Ltd v Redland City Council [2022] QPEC 25. PARTIES: EARTHTECK QLD PTY LTD (Applicant) v REDLAND CITY COUNCIL (Respondent) FILE NO/S: 1915/2021 DIVISION: Planning and Environment PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 15 July 2022, ex tempore DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 15 July 2022 JUDGES: Everson DCJ ORDER: Application dismissed CATCHWORDS: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPLICATION – application for a minor change to a development application – whether the changes result in a minor change as defined in schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) LEGISLATION: Planning Act 2016 (Qld) CASES: Northbrook v Noosa Shire Council [2015] QPELR 664 Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council [2021] QPELR 809 COUNSEL: W Macintosh for the Applicant D Whitehouse for the Respondent SOLICITORS: HWL Ebsworth for the Applicant Redland City Council Legal Service for the Respondent -- 1 of 3 -- [1] This is an application for a minor change to a development application. The only issue which arises for determination is whether or not the changes constitute a minor change, having regard to the definition in schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) and, in particular, the requirement that the change not result in a substantially different development. [2] At the heart of the submission of the appellant is the assertion that with the proposed changes, the proposed development will still represent a small-scale low density residential development comprising detached housing in a bushland setting. While this may be so, this does not provide an answer to the consideration as to whether or not the changes result in a substantially different development. [3] When regard is had to exhibit 1, the plans which accompanied the development application, and then to exhibit 2, the proposed plan, a markedly different lot layout with an increased number of lots is evident. [4] The changes are submitted to be ameliorative, and in particular, I note that from a bushfire management perspective, a ring road is now proposed. Although the development will be located on essentially the same development footprint, the changes involve the addition of five lots, so that a proposed 15-lot reconfiguration becomes a 20-lot reconfiguration, and the proposed lots are now much smaller. [5] Regard must be had to the concept of a substantially different development, and as has been previously observed in this Court, this involves considering whether or not the changes result in an essentially or materially different development.1 That is clearly the case here. [6] It is not sufficient that the proposed development remains a small residential development comprising detached housing in a bushland setting when the layout of the proposed reconfiguration and the lots themselves are radically different. In addition, the number of lots has increased by 25%. Obviously, the fact that the changes are ameliorative does not mean that as a consequence the proposed development remains essentially or materially the same. 1 See Northbrook v Noosa Shire Council [2015] QPELR 664; Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council [2021] QPELR 809. -- 2 of 3 -- [7] On the facts before me, the proposed development is markedly changed, and the changes fall outside the concept of a minor change. [8] I, therefore, dismiss the application. -- 3 of 3 --