Cheney v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2011] QPEC 47

1-1 [2011] QPEC 47 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT JUDGE ROBIN QC P & E Appeal No 2293 of 2010 BRETT CHENEY Appellant and BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER Respondents BRISBANE ..DATE 09/03/2011 ..DAY 1 ORDER CATCHWORDS Sustainable Planning act 2009 s 350 Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 4.1.52(2)(b) Adverse submitter appeal against partial demolition and construction of a house over 8.5 metres in demolition control precinct settled, subject to Council's satisfaction that changes (especially reducing the profile of the building on the appellant's side) were "minor change" -- 1 of 3 -- 1-2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft, which resolves this adverse submitter appeal against the Council's having granted a development permit for the partial demolition of a house in a development control precinct and a preliminary approval for the carrying out of building work for partial demolition and relocation of a pre 1946 building in the demolition control precinct (DCP) and for a material change of use for a house over 8.5 metres in the DCP and on a lot of less than 450 square metres. The matters requiring the court's attention are about changes in the proposal which will prevent the appeal being determined unless assessed as a 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 changes reduce the impacts of the proposal from the point of view of the appellant and comfortably satisfy the relevant tests. The nature of them might be noted. Instead of the neighbour being presented with a solid wall of the proposed altered dwelling, changes are made and at one end the structure will now be open at both levels. On the upper level there will be a deck with battens rather than solid timberwork over the opening. The lower level, again will be open with ground to the upper floor also exhibiting battens. The scale and bulk of the proposal are also reduced at the other end. Stairs which were once to extend outwards from the -- 2 of 3 -- 1-3 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 building will now be “retracted” against the side wall by reason of the introduction of a recessed area there so that the wall in that part would be considerably further away from the neighbours. That change necessitates some rearrangement on the upper level so that the master bedroom doesn't need to be significantly reduced in size. Nobody outside the premises would notice that change. Mr Mullins has also informed the court that there is what appears to be a change in the demolition plans. That occurs only because in a previous set of plans a change which had been resolved upon hadn't properly found its way into the plans. Order as per initialled draft. ----- -- 3 of 3 --