Australand Holdings Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2006] QPEC 30
1
4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532
WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal
offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for
their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those
categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.
[2006] QPEC 030
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Appeal No BD2657 of 2005
AUSTRALAND HOLDINGS LIMITED Appellant
and
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL & ANOR Respondent
and
STATE OF QUEENSLAND Co-Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 17/03/2006
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Act 1997 - Schedule 10
definition of "minor change" held satisfied where increase of
42 residential lots to 44 - canal front lots increased from 10
to 12
-- 1 of 4 --
17032006 T07/JIR22 M/T CMS30/2006 (Robin DCJ)
2 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
HIS HONOUR: This is yet another request that the Court accept
as a "minor change" within the IPA schedule 10 definition a
change to a proposed development arising during the currency
of an appeal.
The Council and the co-respondent, the State of Queensland,
have helpfully indicated their acceptance of the proposition.
It remains incumbent on the Court to form its own view.
Another judge of the court has already determined that
arrangements to incorporate two small park areas in the
subdivision (thus increasing park provision) were a minor
change. I think the court today should be aware of the
cumulative effect of changes.
There is an increase of lots now proposed in what I take to be
a component of a much larger staged development from 42
residential lots to 44 which works out at something like four
and a half per cent. The additional two lots are proposed to
be located in a row of 10 with frontage to a canal. It is
plain that if attention is focused on that part of the
proposal the percentage increase is much greater. As Mr
Trotter has explained it, the additional lots are created by
reducing in size the lots with frontages to the canal. All of
them will still be larger than the average for the 44.
The proposal is code assessable and therefore, as Mr Trotter
points out, paragraph (c) of the definition of minor change
causes no concern. One can postulate that there might be
users of the canal, or people associated with whatever is on
-- 2 of 4 --
17032006 T07/JIR22 M/T CMS30/2006 (Robin DCJ)
3 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
the other side of it, who might be concerned at the addition
of two additional houses fronting the canal to a line of 10
originally proposed. It is irrelevant in the circumstances to
contemplate submissions from them in a context where the
planning arrangements do not allow for submissions. That of
course does not mean that concerned people who find out will
not make representations to the Council or that the Council
will ignore what they might have to say, but it is a relevant
consideration.
In the circumstances, I think that it is appropriate for the
Court to make the sought declaration that the change is a
minor one. In circumstances such as the present the schedule
definition becomes rather sparse; indeed it is even shorn of
paragraph (b). There are circumstances in which code
assessable applications become impact assessable. One which
might have been relevant in slightly different circumstances
would apply to the creation of lots having an area less than
400 square metres. That is not going to happen, nor (the
Court is assured) is anything else to trigger paragraph (b).
If regard has to be paid to ordinary notions of what is a
minor change, apart from the definition, it seems to me still
open to the Court to accede the application. So, there will
be an order in terms of the initialled draft.
-----
-- 3 of 4 --
17032006 T07/JIR22 M/T CMS30/2006 (Robin DCJ)
4 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
-- 4 of 4 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QPEC/2006/030