AV Jennings Properties Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2008] QPEC 68

1 [2008] QPEC 68 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT JUDGE ROBIN QC P & E Appeal No 2154 of 2007 A V JENNINGS PROPERTIES LIMITED Appellant and PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 17/09/2008 ORDER CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 - 4.1.52(2)(b)2 - changes so insignificant that Court is willing to proceed on information regarding them provided by Council's solicitor. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. The unusual feature is that without the usual affidavit material to mount a sufficiently persuasive case that changes to a development proposal are minor, the Court has declared its satisfaction in that regard, being prepared to proceed on the basis of information about those changes provided by the Council's solicitor, Mr Marshall. There are 11 co-respondents in the appeal who have been served with notice of today's mention. Indeed, notifying them was the purpose of the last adjournment. They have not appeared today. It is understood that their principal objection to the development proposal is that it represents an unwelcome intrusion of duplex residential development into their locality. The Council rejected the development application and that's why the appeal is brought. It is willing to grant development approval on the basis of changes which, from any point of view, strike me as minor. If the co-respondents are unhappy about the Court's declaration, the effect of which is simply to advance the appeal towards a hearing on the merits, they can utilise the liberty to apply contained in the order. The introductory parts of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 51.2.3(1)91) urge the Court to make processes efficient and accountable. Mr Marshall's explanation of the changes which lead the Council to change its attitude to the development, but not the co-respondents, is that there are two aspects. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 The first is relocation of the structure from two metres from the revetment wall abutting the adjoining canal to a 4.5 metre setback. The other is provision of additional landscaping beside the property. ----- -- 3 of 3 --