Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2016
  4. Synergy Property Partners No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council - [2016] QPEC 21

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Synergy Property Partners No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 21

Synergy Property Partners No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 21

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Synergy Property Partners No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 21

PARTIES:

SYNERGY PROPERTY PARTNERS NO 2 PTY LTD ACN 154 897 962

(Appellant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

4348/2015

DIVISION:

 

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2016 – 15 April 2016

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – CONSTRUCTION OF PLANNING SCHEME

CONFLICT – Conflict with planning scheme – Grounds –Maintenance and improvement of pre-1911 building – Whether sufficient grounds to justify an approval despite conflict.

Sustainable Planning Act 2009, 326, 493, 495, sch 3

Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 302

Weightman v Gold Coast City Council [2003] 2 Qd R 441

COUNSEL:

R. Quirk for the Appellant

M. Williamson for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mullins Lawyers for the Appellant

Brisbane City Legal Practice for the Respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse a Development Application for a Preliminary Approval to carry out building work (partial demolition of a pre-1911 building) and for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use (Shop, Office, Food and Drink Outlet) of land described as part of Lot 7 on RP9283 and situate at 33 Doggett Street, Teneriffe (“the site”).
  1. [2]
    The Development Application seeks to modify a pre-1911 dwelling house (“the house”) and utilise the site for a Shop, Office, and Food and Drink Outlet, being defined uses pursuant to the Respondent’s planning scheme, City Plan 2014 (“the planning scheme”). The proposed development contemplates a 102.4m2 extension to the house resulting in a total Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 229.7m2 and site cover of 91.14%.[1]
  1. [3]
    It is alleged by the Respondent that the proposed development conflicts with the planning scheme and that there are no sufficient grounds to justify an approval of the proposed development despite the conflict.

The site and the surrounding area

  1. [4]
    The site has an area of 244m2.[2]  The house faces Doggett Street to the northwest and the site is also bounded by Midvale Lane to the west.[3]
  1. [5]
    The context of the house is summarised by Mr Kennedy, the architect who gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent, in the following terms:

“The subject building at #33 Doggett Street is one of 6 contiguous traditional ‘timber and tin’ character buildings which run from Midvale Lane to #43 Doggett St at the top of the hill.

The four matching 1913 traditional ‘timber and tin’ character houses (#35, #37, #39, #41) add uniformity to the streetscape which is demarcated by the two pre 1911 traditional ‘timber and tin’ character houses at #33 and #43.

The porphyry rock face on the footpath in front of all the houses adds to this composition…

This very cohesive streetscape of character residential buildings is in stark contrast with the other buildings in this section of Doggett Street which are mainly commercial in nature.”[4]

  1. [6]
    Pursuant to the planning scheme the site is located in:
  1. (a)
    The Suburban Living Area of the Strategic Framework;
  1. (b)
    The James Street precinct of the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan; and
  1. (c)
    The Low-medium density residential zone (2 or 3 storey mix zone precinct).[5]
  1. [7]
    The site is subject to a pre-1911 building overlay.[6]  Although the balance of the six contiguous traditional character buildings, referred to by Mr Kennedy above, are not the subject of any relevant overlays, they all lie within a small area of Low-medium density residential (“LMDR”) zoned land in Doggett Street which begins at the intersection with Midvale Lane.  Midvale Lane turns at right angles and runs parallel to Doggett Street at a point in line with where the rear boundaries of the lots on which these traditional character buildings once stood.[7]  The LMDR zone in the vicinity of the site takes in all of the lots which now take access from Midvale Lane after it changes direction.  It also takes in a significant part of Arthur Street which runs parallel to Doggett Street to the south and east of the site.[8]  Practically all of the balance of the land in the James Street precinct is zoned Mixed use, including all of the other land fronting Doggett Street.[9] 

The assessment regime

  1. [8]
    Pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (“SPA”) the appeal is by way of hearing anew.[10]  It is an appeal by the applicant for a development application, therefore it is for the applicant to establish that the appeal should be upheld.[11]  The decision of the court must not conflict with the planning scheme unless there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.[12]
  1. [9]
    The Development Application giving rise to the appeal is subject to impact assessment. Therefore it must be assessed against the entire planning scheme, to the extent relevant.[13] In these circumstances s 1.5 of the planning scheme addresses the hierarchy of provisions in the planning scheme.  Relevantly, this provision states:

“Where there is inconsistency between provisions in the planning scheme, the following rules apply:

  1. (a)
    the strategic framework prevails over all other components to the extent of the inconsistency;

…

  1. (d)
    neighbourhood plan codes prevail over zone codes, use codes and other development codes to the extent of the inconsistency;
  1. (e)
    zone codes prevail over use codes and other development codes to the extent of the inconsistency;

….”[14]

  1. [10]
    The strategic framework, contained in Part 3 of the planning scheme, sets the policy direction for the planning scheme and forms the basis for ensuring that appropriate development occurs in the planning scheme area. There are five themes that collectively represent the policy intent of the planning scheme. There are also strategic outcomes proposed for development in the planning scheme area for each theme, specific outcomes and land use strategies for achieving these outcomes.[15]  Relevantly, in respect of Theme 1, in response to Specific Outcome SO1 that “Brisbane provides for a diverse mix of highly accessible retail and commercial locations to service a growing population,” Land use strategy L1 states that “Development for retail and commercial uses accords with the CityShape theme and zoning pattern”.[16]

The disputed issues in the appeal

  1. [11]
    The Respondent contends that the appeal should be dismissed because of conflicts with the planning scheme which arise as a consequence of both the proposed land uses and also as a consequence of the form of the proposed development.[17] 
  1. [12]
    The Appellant submits that the proposed development is in accordance with the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan and to the extent that there are any conflicts with the LMDR zone code, it is the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan which prevails pursuant to the provisions of the planning scheme quoted above. The Appellant takes issue with many of the conflicts with the planning scheme alleged by the Respondent. The Appellant further submits that certain alleged conflicts can be cured by appropriate conditions and that in the event conflicts remain, there is a sufficient ground, namely the maintenance and improvement of a pre-1911 building, which justifies a decision to approve the proposed development despite the conflict.
  1. [13]
    The scope of the disputed issues reduced in the course of the appeal and ultimately reduced further after the conclusion of the evidence.[18]  I will adopt the Respondent’s categorisation of the disputed issues set out in its written submissions.[19]

Conflicts as a consequence of the proposed land uses

  1. [14]
    The purpose of the LMDR zone code relevantly states:

“The purpose of the Low-medium density residential zone code is to provide for a range and mix of dwelling types including dwelling houses and multiple dwellings supported by community uses and small-scale residential services and facilities that cater for local residents.”[20]

  1. [15]
    The house is to be raised and two retail tenancies are proposed for underneath the raised structure. The upstairs portion of the raised structure is proposed to be used for an office and a coffee kiosk is proposed at the front of the site at street level, built to the boundary of the adjoining character house with an associated courtyard and seating area accessible from Doggett Street.[21]  The proposed retail tenancies come within the definition of Shop in the planning scheme,[22] the upstairs office comes within the definition of Office in the planning scheme[23] and the coffee kiosk comes within the definition of Food and Drink Outlet in the planning scheme.[24]  A combination of these three uses place the proposed development outside the definition of small-scale non-residential uses as, relevantly, this includes only Office and Shop uses.[25] They are however within the range of uses contemplated by centre activities.[26]
  1. [16]
    The purpose of the LMDR zone code also states that it is to “Provide for a mix of dwelling types supported by compatible small-scale non-residential uses that are positioned along identified active frontages or individually located.”[27]  It is uncontentious that the proposed development is neither located along an identified active frontage nor individually located.[28]   
  1. [17]
    The limited scope for commercial uses in this zone is reinforced by the overall outcomes for the LMDR zone code which relevantly state:

“(m)  Development for a small-scale non-residential use which is a…office, shop, where … not on land within the … Active frontages in residential zones overlay is to:

  1. (i)
    have a gross floor area of less than 250 m2;
  1. (ii)
    serve local residents’ day-to-day needs;
  1. (iii)
    not undermine the viability of a nearby centre.

(n) Development which would result in the co-location of new non-residential uses may only occur along an active frontage identified on the Active frontages residential zones overlay map or were located in two or more adjoining commercial character buildings.”[29]

  1. [18]
    To address the issues of whether the proposed development will cater for local residents and serve local residents’ day-to-day needs and not undermine the viability of a nearby centre such as in James Street, evidence was called by two ­­­­experts in retail economics, Ms Meulman and Mr Norling.  They agreed that the proposed development, due to its small scale, would not undermine the viability of nearby centres.[30]  So far as the Office and Shop uses are concerned, there is no evidence before me that it is intended that they cater for local residents much less serve their day-to-day needs.  Ms Meulman, who gave evidence on behalf of the Appellant, conceded that these uses will perform a much broader function as part of the James Street precinct.[31]  As the proposed coffee kiosk does not specifically come within the definition of small-scale non-residential uses, it is not contemplated in the LMDR zone.  However, in this regard I accept the evidence of Mr Norling, who stated that there are already seven coffee shops within 300m of the site and 13 coffee shops within 500m of the site.[32]  I also accept his evidence that any demand for the proposed uses due to likely population growth in the area can be accommodated on appropriately zoned land in Mixed use zones.[33]
  1. [19]
    Having regard to the nature of the proposed uses, I am satisfied that there is a major conflict with the LMDR zone code as they fall outside the limited scope contemplated for non-residential uses in the zone.
  1. [20]
    To the extent that it is relevant, the Respondent also raised conflicts with the small-scale non-residential uses code. As noted above the proposed development does not come within the definition of small-scale non-residential uses. However, this code is stated to apply to impact assessable development for “small-scale non-residential uses or a use of a similar nature”.[34] To the extent that it could be argued that the proposed coffee kiosk is a use of a similar nature and that this code offers guidance as to the nature of non-residential development which is contemplated within the relevant residential zone, it has relevance. 
  1. [21]
    The purpose of the code relevantly states:

“2. The purpose of the code will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:

….

  1. (d)
    Development serves a demonstrable need of the local community;
  1. (e)
    Development fulfils a role distinct from uses in centres, is not located in close proximity to existing centres, and is not established in a location that results in a cluster of non-residential activity within the applicable zone in the residential zones category…”[35]

Having regard to the evidence of Ms Meulman and Mr Norling referred to above I am not persuaded that the proposed development serves a demonstrable need of the local community. On the evidence before me the proposed development will merely replicate other development in nearby centres including James Street. Furthermore, it is located in close proximity to the existing centre in James Street and results in a cluster of non-residential activity within the LMDR zone.[36] These findings reinforce the extent of the conflict with the LMDR zone identified above. It is noteworthy that the strategic framework emphasises the importance of the zoning pattern in land use strategy L1 in Element 1.3 of the strategic framework.

Conflicts as a consequence of the proposed built form

  1. [22]
    The Respondent asserts that both the commercial character of the proposed development and its failure to provide an appropriate transition to adjoining residential development result in conflicts with various provisions of the planning scheme.
  1. [23]
    Firstly, it is alleged that there is conflict with part of the purpose of the LMDR zone code which relevantly provides that its purpose is to:

“Ensure development occurs on appropriately sized and configured lots and is of a form and scale that reinforces a distinctive subtropical character of low to low-medium rise buildings with a landscaped, streetscape and recreation areas.”[37]

It is further alleged that there is conflict with part of the overall outcomes for the 2 or 3 storey mix zone precinct of this code which requires that “Development responds to local characteristics, such as the protection of view corridors, reinforces a green landscape character and responds to the surrounding character and architecture.”[38]

  1. [24]
    The Respondent also asserts conflict with part of the purpose of the small-scale non-residential uses code which requires that “Development is low key in nature and complements the prevailing scale, built form, setting and streetscape character of a surrounding zone in the residential zones category.”[39]
  1. [25]
    Finally it is asserted that there is also conflict with the centre or mixed use code, the purpose of which requires that “Development involving a new use in an existing building is appropriate for its location and does not negatively impact on the amenity of the local area or adjoining residents.”[40]  This code applies to impact assessable development for a use of a commercial or retail nature and therefore is relevant to the issues in dispute.
  1. [26]
    With respect to the issue of transition, the LMDR zone code includes as an overall outcome for the 2 or 3 storey mix zone precinct that “Development design, height and setbacks provide a sensitive transition at the edge of the site to an adjoining dwelling house or land in a lower density zone or zone precinct.”[41]  In addition to this site specific provision, there are also more general provisions addressing transition in the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code which applies to assessing a material change of use application in the neighbourhood plan area.  The purpose of this code includes a requirement that “Development carefully transitions to lower intensity residential activity at the interface with the residential neighbourhoods of New Farm, Light Street hill and Spring hill”.[42]  The site is not at the interface of any of these residential neighbourhoods and this provision is not relevant to the determination of the disputed issues in this appeal.[43]  Had it been the intention of the Respondent to include the residential neighbourhood of Teneriffe in this category of residential neighbourhoods it could have been specified.  Had it been the intention to include development transitioning to lower intensity residential activity at the interface with all adjoining residential neighbourhoods, a more general provision could equally have been drafted. 
  1. [27]
    In so far as the issues of commercial character and site specific transition are concerned, evidence was given by two architects with considerable experience in heritage buildings, Mr McDonald and Mr Kennedy. In terms of the characterisation of the proposed development I prefer the evidence of Mr Kennedy that the proposed development presented as essentially commercial in character in terms of the coffee kiosk and the downstairs retail tenancies.[44]  His views in this regard were effectively confirmed by Mr McDonald under cross-examination.[45]  I accept Mr Kennedy’s evidence that the group of character houses adjoining the site are the only cohesive part of Doggett Street and that the rest of the street is, as he put it, “a bit of a dog’s breakfast”.[46]  I accept Mr Kennedy’s evidence that the presentation of the coffee kiosk at the front of the site,[47]  the access from the street to the courtyard area at the front of the site,[48]  the treatment of the downstairs retail spaces including the glazing[49] and the balustrades and rendering of the front of the upstairs part of the development[50] are such that the proposed development is not sympathetic to the traditional character of the building. 
  1. [28]
    Accordingly, I find that there is conflict with the relevant parts of the LMDR zone code quoted above which address character and architecture. The proposed development is not of a form and scale that reinforces the prescribed distinctive subtropical character and it does not respond to surrounding character and architecture. To the extent it is relevant I also find that the proposed development does not complement the prevailing scale, built form, setting and streetscape character of the character houses in the LMDR zone contrary to the relevant part of the purpose of the small-scale non-residential uses zone code. I further find that the proposed development is not appropriate for its proposed location and is therefore in conflict with the relevant part of the purpose in the centre or mixed use code. Given the location of the house as one of six contiguous character buildings, these conflicts are significant.

So far as the question of transition to the adjoining character house in Doggett Street is concerned, it was conceded by Mr Kennedy[51] and Ms Morrissy, the planner called by the Respondent,[52]  that there is no issue with respect to the height of the proposed development providing an appropriate transition to the house next door.  Equally, I accept that the screening of the side steps will assist in providing a sensitive transition as conceded by Ms Morrissy.[53]  I also agree with Mr McDonald that the fact that the proposed development is to be built to boundary is a perfectly acceptable outcome on small lots and not of itself an issue.[54]  However, I agree with Mr Kennedy that the presence of the coffee kiosk at the boundary adjoining the character house next door does not effect a sensitive transition.[55] It is because of this that I find that there is conflict with this overall outcome for the 2 or 3 storey mix zone precinct in the LMDR zone code. 

  1. [29]
    The Respondent also alleges conflict with various provisions of the planning scheme which require landscaping and, in particular, deep planting.[56]  In this regard I accept the submission of the Appellant that any issues pertaining to the adequacy of the landscaping proposed by it can be the subject of appropriate conditions.[57]

Inconsistency with the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan

  1. [30]
    The Appellant submits that the proposed development is not in conflict with the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code. It further submits that any inconsistencies with other codes are of no consequence because the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code prevails over other codes pursuant to s 1.5 of the planning scheme.[58]  To bolster its argument in this regard, the Appellant refers to part of the code’s purpose which states that the purpose of the code “is to provide finer grained planning at a local level for the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan area”.[59]  The Appellant claims that there are a number of general statements within the purpose of the code that support the proposed development, namely that Fortitude Valley “is a nationally recognised destination catering for a multitude of people and uses” and “James Street is supported as a lifestyle node, together with small-scale businesses along surrounding streets such as Robertson Street”.[60]  Particular reliance is placed upon the reference to the James Street precinct overall outcome that:

“ The precinct contains a mix of commercial, retail, residential and recreational uses, providing a transition between the retail, business and entertainment-orientated precincts surrounding Ann Street and Wickham Street and the predominately residential area of New Farm”.[61]

  1. [31]
    So far as the assessment criteria for this code are concerned, performance outcome PO1 requires, inter alia, that the proposed development “contributes to a cohesive streetscape and built form character”. Mr McDonald takes a broad view of the street, expressing the opinion that the proposed development “will integrate residential and commercial characteristics which will visually relate to both the character of the adjoining detached houses and the predominantly commercial built form character” of the street.[62] However I prefer the evidence of Mr Kennedy, that the house “currently forms part of a very cohesive streetscape of five ‘timber and tin’ character houses” and that the proposed development, because of its commercial appearance and kiosk “detracts from this cohesive traditional timber and tin character streetscape”.[63] I therefore find that the proposed development is in conflict with PO1 of the code in this respect.
  1. [32]
    Even assuming there is compliance with the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code, the question of whether there is in fact inconsistency between this code and the other codes discussed above remains. The LMDR zone code states that its purpose is to “provide for a range and mix of dwelling types… supported by community uses and small-scale non-residential services and facilities that cater for local residents”.[64]  These provisions, and those quoted above from the neighbourhood plan code, are harmonious and do not reveal any inconsistency.  The purpose of the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code envisages “catering for a multitude of people and uses”[65] and the lifestyle node of James Street “together with small-scale businesses along surrounding streets”[66] with the James Street precinct containing “a mix of commercial, retail, residential and recreational uses”.[67] This is entirely consistent with the LMDR zone code providing for a range and mix of dwelling types supported by community uses and small-scale non-residential services and facilities in that part of the James Street precinct of the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code area which is zoned LMDR.  Other uses contemplated for the precinct within the “mix” referred to above can be readily accommodated in the balance of it which has a Mixed use zoning.  The Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code and the LMDR zone code can be read together harmoniously.  Following on from this, the small-scale non-residential uses code can also be read harmoniously with the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code, as can the centre or mixed use code.
  1. [33]
    If I am wrong in this regard, the strategic framework prevails over all other components to the extent of inconsistency and this clearly contemplates development for retail and commercial uses in accordance with the zoning pattern.[68]  An interpretation of the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan code which ignored the zoning of the site would be inconsistent with this aspect of the strategic framework, in conflict with the planning scheme in any event.

Grounds

  1. [34]
    The only ground raised by the Appellant as being sufficient to justify a decision approving the proposed development, despite the conflicts identified above, is that it is a matter of public interest that pre-1911 buildings are maintained and improved.[69]
  1. [35]
    The term “grounds” is defined in Schedule 3 of SPA as:

“1. Grounds means matters of public interest.

2. Grounds does not include the personal circumstances of an applicant, owner or interested party.”

  1. [36]
    In Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd,[70] the Court of Appeal endorsed the three stage test which had previously been pronounced in Weightman v Gold Coast City Council[71] which requires the court to:

“1. examine the nature and extend of the conflict;

2. determine whether there are any planning grounds which are relevant to the part of the application which is in conflict with the planning scheme and if the conflict can be justified on those planning grounds;

 3. determine whether the planning grounds in favour of the application as a whole are, on balance, sufficient to justify approving the application notwithstanding the conflict.”[72]

The test now applies with the term “grounds” as defined above being substituted for the former term “planning grounds”.

  1. [37]
    The commercial nature of the proposed development in the LMDR zone represents a significant conflict with provisions of the planning scheme designed to restrict land uses of this type in this area. The fact that the character houses which adjoin the site within the LMDR zone could have been better protected with an appropriate overlay does not diminish the conflict with the relevant provisions designed to maintain residential amenity. Similarly, there are significant conflicts in terms of building form when the commercial presentation of the proposed development is compared with the character and form of development which would be within the contemplation of the relevant provisions of the planning scheme. To the extent that the reuse of the house, which is already protected by an appropriate overlay, can be said to be a ground, it is noteworthy that this could be achieved without the proposed commercial uses and that the proposed commercial uses give the building an appearance which is not consistent with its original form. As Mr Kennedy stated, “the outcome is one that’s not residential”.[73]  Such a tenuous ground is not, on balance, sufficient to justify approving the application notwithstanding the conflicts identified above.

Conclusion

  1. [38]
    The proposed development seeks to change the character of the house which is protected as a pre-1911 dwelling. Currently the house is one of six contiguous traditional character buildings which are within the LMDR zone and which all face Doggett Street. The proposed development would constitute an intrusion of commercial activity into a coherent residential area, both in terms of the proposed uses and the proposed design changes to the house. This is in conflict with a number of provisions of the planning scheme which are designed to prevent such an intrusion. The maintenance of residential amenity in this part of Doggett Street is not only entirely consistent with its zoning but also with the provisions of the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan and, in particular, the overall outcomes for the James Street precinct. There are no sufficient grounds to justify the proposed development despite the conflicts with the planning scheme which I have identified.

Order

  1. [39]
    The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]  Exhibit 2(a), p 3.

[2]  Ibid.

[3]  Ibid p 5.

[4]  Ex 6, p 6.

[5]  Ex 2(a), p 7.

[6]  Ibid.

[7]  Ex 6, p 2.

[8]  Ex 10.

[9]  Ibid.

[10]  Section 495(1). 

[11]  Section 493(1).

[12]  Section 326(1).

[13]  Ex 1, pp 68 and 72.

[14]  Ibid p 2. This approach is also reflected in the strategic outcomes for Theme 5: Brisbane’s CityShape in outcome (4) (ibid p 46).

[15]  Ex 1, p 3.

[16]  Ibid, p 10.

[17]  Ex 12, para 15.

[18]  Ex 11 and 12.

[19]  Ex 12.

[20]  Ex 1, p 78.

[21]  Ex 2(a), p 52.

[22]  Ex 1, p 159

[23]  Ibid, p 156.

[24]  Ibid, p 153.

[25]  Ibid, p 167.

[26]  Ibid, p 163.

[27]  Ibid, p 78.

[28]  Ex 12, para 22.

[29]  Ex 1, p 79.

[30]  Ex 2(b), p 19.

[31]  T2-38 Lines 40-45.

[32]  Ex 2(b), p 12.

[33]  Ibid, p 16.

[34]  Ex 1, p 145.

[35]  Ibid.

[36] There are also conflicts of a similar nature with PO2 of the code which states that development must not cause an incremental extension to the edge of an existing centre or be located in a catchment that is already served by an existing centre.

[37]  Ex 1, p 78.

[38]  Ibid, p 80.

[39]  Ibid, p 145.

[40]  Ibid, p 101.

[41]  Ibid, p 80.

[42]  Ibid, p 82.

[43]  Ex 10.

[44]  Ex 6, p 7, T2 – 2-4 – 2-5.

[45]  T1-76

[46]  T2-16 Lines 40-45.

[47]  T2-4 Lines 25-35.

[48]  T2-4 Lines 30-35.

[49]  T2-5 Lines 15-30.

[50]  T2-8 Lines 15-30.

[51]  T2-26 Lines 1-10.

[52]  T3-29 Lines 20-25.

[53]  T3-29 Lines 15-20.

[54]  T1 – 80 Lines 10-15.

[55]  T2-27 Lines 25-35.

[56]  Ex 12, paras 62 -67. 

[57]  Ex 12, para 46.

[58]  Ex 10, p 2.

[59]  Ibid, p 82.

[60]  Ibid.

[61]  Ibid, p 84.

[62]  Ex 2 (b), p 10.

[63]  Ibid.

[64]  Ex 1, p 78.

[65]  Ibid, p 82.

[66]  Ibid.

[67]  Ibid.

[68]  Ibid, p 10.

[69]  Ex 11, para 49.

[70]  [2003] 2 Qd R 302.

[71]  [2003] 2 Qd R 441.

[72] Westlink, op cit at [18].

[73]  T2-25 Lines 15-20.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Synergy Property Partners No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Synergy Property Partners No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

  • MNC:

    [2016] QPEC 21

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Everson DCJ

  • Date:

    28 Apr 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 302
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] 2 Qd R 302
Cite 2 - [2003] 2 Qd R 302
Cite 3 - [2003] 2 Qd R 302
Weightman v Gold Coast City Council[2003] 2 Qd R 441; [2002] QCA 234
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] 2 Qd R 441
Cite 2 - [2003] 2 Qd R 441

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Hawkhaven Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council [2017] QPEC 402 citations
James Russell Architects v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 432 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.