Comiskey Group v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2010] QPEC 124

1-1 [2010] QPEC 124 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT JUDGE ROBIN QC P & E Appeal No 492 of 2010 COMISKEY GROUP Appellant and SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 03/11/2010 ORDER CATCHWORDS Integrated Planning Act 1997, s 3.5.33(7) Appeal against Council refusal to change its earlier approval of a shopping centre - parties now agreed on the change on basis of increased park provision and reduced infrastructure charges - court required to consider submissions about original application - those were irrelevant to the subject matter of the change -- 1 of 3 -- 1-2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: The court has made an order in terms of the initialled draft pursuant to s 3.5.33 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The appeal is against the refusal of the Council to change its earlier approval which resulted in a development permit for a material change of use of premises for a shopping centre complex of 1,450 square metres in respect of land at Coes Creek Road, Burnside. The appeal is resolved on the basis that rather more land is dedicated as park than the Council's conditions for agreeing to a change contemplated. However, the appellant obtains relief in respect of the quantum of infrastructure charges which the Council had demanded earlier. Subsection (7) of the provision referred to requires the entity making the decision, now the court, to have regard to matters identified, including the submissions that have been made about the application under which the conditions under appeal were originally imposed. Those have been put before the court. There were six of them, including a petition with some 150 signatures or thereabouts. The concerns expressed in those submissions, which I have considered as the Act requires, relate to need for the development and traffic issues, including the safety of school children and cyclists in particular. There are concerns about over-development of what these submitters valued as a quiet area with a certain rural character and in a detailed submission from a church, -- 2 of 3 -- 1-3 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 one encounters concerns expressed about potential flooding, noise, security issues that might be created for the church and concerns about the likely use of its car park by shoppers. Concerns of that kind required consideration when the original application was made. No doubt the Council as assessment manager considered them. They are not "relevant" to s 3.5.33(7) in the context of the changes to conditions which the appellant seeks and, today, successfully. ----- -- 3 of 3 --