Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2016
  4. James Russell Architects v Brisbane City Council - [2016] QPEC 43

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

James Russell Architects v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 43

James Russell Architects v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 43

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OF COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

James Russell Architects v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2016] QPEC 43

PARTIES:

JAMES RUSSELL ARCHITECTS PTY LTD

(Appellant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(Respondent)

And

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE, LOCAL GOVENRMENT AND PLANNING

(Co-Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1669/2015

DIVISION:

Planning & Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning & Environment of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2016, 10 June 2016

JUDGE:

Searles DCJ

ORDER:

  1. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL –  APPLICATIONS – OBJECTIONS ­– where the Appellant made a development application for a material change of use and preliminary approval for building work (extension to heritage place) – where the development application was refused by the Respondent Council – where the development application was assessed against City Plan 2000 – where City Plan 2014 came into effect three days after lodgement of the development application – where the Court must determine what weight to be given to each of City Plan 2000 and City Plan 2014 – where the development application seeks approval for construction of a ‘pod’ structure – where the ‘pod’ structure sits atop an access core constructed from within the heritage place – whether the development application unacceptably impacts the cultural heritage value of the heritage place – whether the development application is consistent with the relevant planning scheme – whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant approval of the development application despite conflict with a relevant planning scheme

Brisbane City Plan 2000

Brisbane City Plan 2014

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) ss 246, 289, 313, 314, 324, 325, 326, 493(1), 495.

Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) s 35

Cowan v Brisbane City Council [2012] QPEC 81

Fitzgibbons Hotel Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [1997] QPELR 208

Hymix Australia Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2014] QPEC 35

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

Wurtulla Investments Pty Ltd & Hiroc Pty Ltd v Calundra City Council [2004] QPEC 73

COUNSEL:

MA Williamson for the Appellant

T Trotter for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Connor O'Meara for the Appellant

Brisbane City Legal Practice for the Respondent

Appeal

  1. [2]
    By Notice of Appeal dated 24 June 2015, the Appellant appeals[1] the decision of the Respondent Council (‘Council’) refusing the Appellant’s development application (‘DA’) for a material change of use and a preliminary approval for building work (extension to heritage place) in respect of land situated at 116 Brookes Street, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006 described as Lots 1 and 2 on SP166740 (‘the Land’).

Subject Site

  1. [3]
    The Land has an area of approximately 872m2 and is improved by a former Wesleyan Church building (‘Gregory Place’) at 116 Brookes Street constructed around 1888 adjoined by a church hall (‘Gregory Hall’), constructed around 1871. Gregory Hall is located on the adjoining lot at 120 Brookes Street.
  1. [4]
    Both Gregory Place and Gregory Hall are listed on the Queensland Heritage Register, and fall within the Heritage Register Planning Scheme Policy under both City Plan 2000 (‘City Plan 2000’) and the Heritage Overlay Code of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (‘City Plan 2014’). They are surrounded by modern multi-level buildings of various uses including office, residential, retail and food premises.[2] All development around the subject site is of modern character constructed within the last ten years.[3] Gregory Place is separated from development to its east, north and west by an access easement which provides vehicular access to adjoining sites. The southern boundary of the site has a frontage to Brookes Street of approximately 19.6 metres.
  1. [5]
    Gregory Place has been the subject of several structural renovations, including:
  1. a two storey dwelling house added on the eastern side;
  2. a café and courtyard located between the church and Brookes Street;
  3. a brick archway on the south-eastern frontage to Brookes Street; and
  4. a small office extension attached in the north-western corner of the rear of the church.[4]

(‘Existing Structural Additions’)

Development Application – Nature of the Proposal

  1. [6]
    On 27 June 2014, the Appellant made an impact assessable application to Council for a development permit for material change of use and preliminary approval for building work for an extension to the Church, a heritage place. The proposed built form is outlined schematically in Exhibit 10. The seminal aspects of the development proposal are:
  1. ‘pod’ or ‘Olympic torch’ (‘the Pod’);
  2. the Pod, offset from the centre of the church, emerges from its vestry at the rear and comprises five storeys constructed atop an access core (locating the lift well) rising from the ground floor of the vestry;
  3. the Pod is a separate structure from Gregory Place with clear air between the two structures.
  4. As to the proposed content of the five storey Pod Structure, the Town Planning Assessment Report of Bartley Burns (‘Town Planning Assessment Report’), accompanying the DA, provides, ‘It is proposed for the additional storeys to ultimately constitute additional office space, and the proposal also includes a caretaker’s flat.’[5]
  5. As to the built form, that report further states:- ‘The proposed building work aims to meld the existing character of the former church (being a State Listed Heritage Place) and the modern architectural elements of the new building work to create a unique and iconic built form outcome, that provides for synergistic and intelligent co-use of the site.’[6]
  1. [7]
    The plans show the height of the complete structure above Gregory Place at 35 metres from ground level, some 14 metres taller than the main spire.[7] As I have said, the structure emerges from the vestry of Gregory Place at the rear of the building with the Pod overhanging the main roof of Gregory Place by approximately 4.2 metres, roughly one fifth of the total length of the roof.[8]

Decision Notice

  1. [8]
    By letter dated 26 March 2015, the Respondent[9] notified the Appellants the DA had been refused enclosing the decision notice, pursuant to section 334 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) (‘SPA’), detailing the grounds of refusal (‘Decision Notice’).[10]
  1. [9]
    The grounds of refusal are set out in full in Appendix A hereto and include, inter alia, details of what is said to be the DA’s inconsistencies with the relevant planning scheme codes under City Plan 2000 (‘Grounds of Refusal’). The grounds particularise the various Acceptable Solutions (‘AS’) and Performance Criteria (‘PC’), within each development code which are said to conflict with the DA.[11] Further, all relevant referral agencies[12] were identified, with the absence of any properly made submissions noted.

Concurrence Agency Response – Conditional Approval

  1. [10]
    On 13 November 2014, the State Department of Infrastructure and Planning (‘Department’), as a concurrence agency[13], approved the DA subject to conditions (‘Concurrence Agency Response’)[14]. That Concurrence Agency Response was preceded by a State Assessment and Referral Agency (‘SARA’) technical agency assessment response conducted by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection[15] (‘Technical Agency Response’). That Technical Agency Response also approved the DA, subject to conditions.
  1. [11]
    The Concurrence Agency Response and the Technical Agency Responses were not assessed by reference to City Plan 2000 or City Plan 2014, but rather by reference to the State Development Assessment Provisions (‘SDAP’) contained within Module 9 – Cultural Heritage.[16]
  1. [12]
    Pursuant to section 289 of SPA, the Concurrence Agency Response set out the reasons founding the conditioning of the approval as follows:

‘The reasons for this decision are:

  • To ensure the development is carried out generally in accordance with the plans of development submitted with the application
  • To facilitate the monitoring of the development works for compliance purposes
  • To ensure that the cultural heritage values of the place are appropriately recognised and managed during construction.’[17]
  1. [13]
    With respect to the Concurrence Agency Response, section 325 of SPA provides:

325 Effect of concurrence agency’s response

  1. If a concurrence agency's response requires conditions to be attached to a development approval for the application, the assessment manager must attach to any approval, in the exact form given by the concurrence agency, the concurrence agency conditions.
  2. If a concurrence agency's response has, under section 287(1)(b) or (c), stated an action that must be taken, the assessment manager must take the action.
  3. If a concurrence agency's response has, under section 287(1)(d), stated a different period for section 341(1)(b), (2)(c) or (3)(b), the assessment manager must, on any development approval, state the period.
  4. If a concurrence agency's response requires the application to be refused, the assessment manager must refuse it.

(emphasis added)

  1. [14]
    Accordingly, were the Concurrence Agency Response to require refusal of the DA, the Council, as ‘assessment manager’ under section 246 of SPA, would have been bound to refuse the application.
  1. [15]
    Correlatively, section 314(3) of SPA provides:

314 Impact Assessment Generally

  1. In addition to the matters or things against which the assessment manager must assess the application under subsection (2), the assessment manager must assess the part of the application having regard to the following:
  1. the common material;
  2. any development approval for, and any lawful use of, premises the subject of the application or adjacent premises;
  3. any referral agency's response for the application

 (emphasis added)

  1. [16]
    It can be seen then that a concurrence agency[18] response is only binding when it indicates a refusal. Where the concurrence agency response indicates approval, as is in the present case, the assessment manager need only ‘have regard’[19] to it.  I accept the Respondent’s submission that, in contrast to the Concurrence Agency Response, the Department did not, as the Court did, receive the benefit of evidence from various experts. This was an important consideration recognized in Hymix Australia Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [20]. In the present case, the experts included heritage architects, visual amenity experts and town planning experts, allowing for a well informed decision regarding the impacts of the proposal on cultural heritage in the context of the relevant planning scheme provisions.
  1. [17]
    It was said by Ms Shannon McGuire, the Council’s town planning expert that there was a difference in the tests to be applied for assessing cultural heritage under SDAP at the State level and City Plan 2014 at local level. Ms McGuire said the test in the Heritage Overlay Code was ‘higher’ than that within the SDAP.[21] Despite her evidence, the Council made it clear at the close of the hearing that no submission, relying on that evidence would be made to support its case and it was not.[22] Accordingly, I proceed on the basis that both entities, the State and the Council, were both to consider the impacts of the DA on the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place, with no material difference in the respective tests.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [18]
    The Notice of Appeal discloses the following grounds of appeal as follows:

‘4. The grounds of refusal advanced by the Respondent are erroneous and do not justify refusal of the Application in all the circumstances.

  1. 5.
    Having regard to the following factors:-
  1. (a)
    The Proposed Development does not conflict with the purpose and requirements of the Heritage Place Code, Centre Design Code and Transport, Access, Parking and Servicing Code;
  1. (b)
    The proposal is in accordance with the intent and the desired environmental outcomes for the Land and the area as enunciated in City Plan 2000 and complies with the acceptable solutions of the Development Codes,
  1. (c)
    Alternatively, to the extent there is any conflict with City Plan 2000 (which is not admitted) there are sufficient planning grounds to justify approving the application,

The Respondent was wrong in refusing the Application and ought to have issued the preliminary approval and development permit sought by the Application, subject to reasonable and relevant conditions.’[23](‘Grounds of Appeal’)

Statutory Regime

  1. [19]
    Under section 493(1) of SPA, the Appellant bears the onus of establishing that its application ought be approved and the appeal allowed. It is not in dispute that under SPA, the DA was impact assessable[24], and hence subject to assessment pursuant to section 314(2) and (3) of and to be decided in accordance with section 324 and 326 of SPA.
  1. [20]
    Section 314 of SPA provides;

314 Impact assessment—generally

  1. This section applies to any part of the application requiring impact assessment.
  2. The assessment manager must assess the part of the application against each of the following matters or things to the extent the matter or thing is relevant to the development—
  1. the State planning regulatory provisions;
  2. the regional plan for a designated region, to the extent it is not identified in the planning scheme as being appropriately reflected in the planning scheme;
  3. if the assessment manager is not a local government—the laws that are administered by, and the policies that are reasonably identifiable as policies applied by, the assessment manager and that are relevant to the application;

Note—

However, if the chief executive is the assessment manager for the application, see section 255B.

  1. (d)
    State planning policies, to the extent the policies are not identified in—
  1. any relevant regional plan as being appropriately reflected in the regional plan; or
  2. the planning scheme as being appropriately reflected in the planning scheme;
  1. (e)
    a temporary local planning instrument;
  1. (f)
    a preliminary approval to which section 242 applies;
  1. (g)
    a planning scheme;
  1. (h)
    for development not in a planning scheme area—any planning scheme or temporary local planning instrument for a planning scheme area that may be materially affected by the development;
  1. (i)
    if the assessment manager is an infrastructure provider—the provider's LGIP, if any.

Note—

See chapters 2 and 3 for particular provisions about the relationship between the matters or things mentioned in subsection (2).

  1. In addition to the matters or things against which the assessment manager must assess the application under subsection (2), the assessment manager must assess the part of the application having regard to the following—
  1. (a)
    the common material;
  1. (b)
    any development approval for, and any lawful use of, premises the subject of the application or adjacent premises;
  1. (c)
    any referral agency's response for the application.
  1. [21]
    At the time the DA was made on 27 June 2014, City Plan 2000 was still in force, rendering it the relevant planning scheme for the purposes of assessment. At that lodgement date, a draft of City Plan 2014 had reached the advanced stage of public notification and three days later, on 30 June 2014, it came into operation. Relevantly, section 495 of SPA provides;

495 Appeal by way of hearing anew

  1. (1)
    An appeal is by way of hearing anew.
  1. (2)
    However, if the appellant is the Appellant or a submitter for a development application, the court—
  1. (a)
    must decide the appeal based on the laws and policies applying when the application was made, but may give weight to any new laws and policies the court considers appropriate;

  (emphasis added)

  1. [22]
    So a question to be addressed is the relative weight to be given to each of City Plans 2000 and 2014. Council submitted that there is no relevant substantial difference between them and that the DA is non-compliant with both.[25] The Appellant says there is nothing within City Plan 2014 which would warrant a refusal of the DA ‘over and above any reason which may arise under the City Plan 2000.’[26]

Planning Scheme Provisions

  1. [23]
    Council identified and set out a brief summary of the relevant planning provisions under both City Plans.[27] Under City Plan 2000, they include the following:
  1. a)
    Heritage Place Code;
  1. b)
    Centre Design Code;
  1. c)
    Fortitude Valley Neighbourhood Plan; and
  1. d)
    Strategic Plan
  1. [24]
    Under City Plan 2014, they include the following:
  1. a)
    Strategic Framework;
  1. b)
    Fortitude Valley Neighbourhood Plan;
  1. c)
    Mixed Use (Inner city) Zone Code;
  1. d)
    Centre or Mixed Use Code; and
  1. e)
    Heritage Overlay Code.

Expert Witnesses

  1. [25]
    The Appellant called the following expert witnesses:
  1. a)
    Mr Scott, heritage architect expert; and
  1. b)
    Mr Buckley, town planning expert.
  1. [26]
    The Council called the following expert witnesses:
  1. a)
    Ms Woods, heritage architect expert;
  1. b)
    Mr King, visual amenity expert; and
  1. c)
    Ms McGuire, town planning expert.

Central Issue

  1. [27]
    Notwithstanding the various provisions identified in City Plan 2000 and City Plan 2014, the primary issue is not in dispute between the parties[28] and that is whether the proposed development, by reference to the relevant planning scheme provisions, which I accept are not substantially different, unacceptably impacts the cultural heritage value of Gregory Place.
  1. [28]
    In the Town Planning Joint Expert Report, the issue was reduced to the following fundamental proposition,

 ‘the central issue to this appeal is a consideration of the impact of the development on cultural heritage and whether the extent of the change and resulting impact is acceptable’[29]

  1. [29]
    The table in Appendix B hereto summarises the various references to cultural heritage significance within both City Plan 2000 and City Plan 2014. These are the provisions considered by the town planning experts in their joint expert report.[30] The Council says these provisions are inconsistent with the DA and this inconsistency forms the basis of its Grounds of Refusal.
  1. [30]
    In order to determine whether the DA is inconsistent with the planning scheme provisions in Appendix B, it is firstly necessary to ascertain the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place as precisely as possible. This will allow an assessment to be then made as to whether, in the context of the relevant planning scheme provisions, the DA, if approved, would unacceptably impact on that ascertained cultural heritage significance.

What is the cultural significance of the Gregory Place?

  1. [31]
    As set out in paragraph [4], both buildings under consideration are listed on the Queensland Heritage Register (‘QHR’), fall within the Heritage Register Planning Scheme Policy under City Plan 2000 and are mapped as a local heritage places under City Plan 2014. It is convenient to commence the task of ascertaining the precise cultural heritage significance by considering the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) (‘Queensland Heritage Act’), which provides the criteria for entry into the QHR.

Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld)

  1. [32]
    Section 35(1) of the Queensland Heritage Act provides:

35 Criteria for entry into register

(1) A place may be entered in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place if it satisfies 1 or more of the following criteria—

(a) the place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland's history;

(b) the place demonstrates rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of Queensland's cultural heritage;

(c) the place has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Queensland's history;

Example of a place for paragraph (c)—

a place that has potential to contain an archaeological artefact that is an important source of information about Queensland's history

(d) the place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places;

(e) the place is important because of its aesthetic significance;

(f) the place is important in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical  achievement at a particular period;

(g) the place has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural  group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

(h) the place has a special association with the life or work of a particular person, group or organisation of importance in Queensland's history.

  1. [33]
    The heritage experts agree that the QHR citation for Gregory Place and Gregory Hall accurately describe their place, their history, their description, their boundary and their significance. [31] The citation is extracted within the Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects[32] and denotes the following:

‘4.1 Criterion A: The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history.

Gregory Place and Gregory Hall are important in demonstrating the pattern of Queensland’s history, providing evidence of the development and growth of the Wesleyan Church in Brisbane and as one of a group of substantial churches built in Fortitude Valley in the 1870s and 1880s, reflecting the residential growth of the Valley and adjacent suburbs in the last quarter of the 19th century.

4.2 Criterion D: The place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places.

The 1888 building demonstrates the principal characteristics of a substantial, ornate, brick church of the late 1880s, in Brisbane.

4.3 Criterion E: The place is important because of its aesthetic significance.

The buildings exhibit aesthetic characteristics which are valued by the community, in particular; their aesthetic cohesion due to their complementary scale, form, detail and materials, their contribution to both the Brookes Street townscape and the precinct of Gothic-influenced church buildings which includes the Holy Trinity Church and Rectory, the modest but fine quality of the detailing of the 1871 building and the fine and elaborate quality of the crafted elements of the 1888 building, in particular the stained glass windows and ornaments to the buildings fabric in timber, stone and plaster.

4.4 Criterion G: The place has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

Gregory Place and Gregory Hall have a special association as the ‘Mother Church’ from which most of the North Brisbane Methodist Churches, from Windsor to Sandgate and North Pine devolved.

4.5 Criterion H: The place has special association with the life or work of a particular person, group or organisation of importance in Queensland’s history.

Gregory Place and Gregory Hall have a special association with the work of the Methodist Church, in particular that of the Wesleyan Church, in Brisbane from 1870 to 1977 and with Brisbane architects James Cowlishaw and George Simkin, being examples of their ecclesiastical work.’[33]

  1. [34]
    The criteria for entry into the Heritage Register under the Heritage Place Planning Scheme Policy of City Plan 2000 and the Heritage Overlay of City Plan 2014 are substantially the same as the criteria under the Queensland Heritage Act. The only difference is that the Queensland Heritage Act makes reference to ‘Queensland’s history’[34] whereas under City Plan 2000 and City Plan 2014, reference is made to ‘the city’s or local area’s history’.[35] The Council acknowledges that, in the context of this appeal, nothing turns on such differences.[36] I agree.
  1. [35]
    Given that Gregory Place is no longer officially used as a place of worship, I consider the above Criteria D and E of the QHR, encapsulating the aesthetics of Gregory Place, are central to the question of the extent to which the building exhibits cultural heritage significance. That is not to say the other criteria are not of importance.
  1. [36]
    ‘Aesthetics’ was recently referred to in Cowan v Brisbane City Council[37], where the Court noted:

‘[53] Aesthetic significance involves a concept of something which makes a positive visual contribution. Matters of situation and context are relevant in assessing whether a building is important because of its aesthetic significance’

  1. [37]
    In characterising the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place, the Appellant, correctly, in my view, emphasised Criteria D and Criteria E of the QHR and also said:

‘…the church and the hall exhibit the following aesthetic characteristics which are valued by the community:

  1. their aesthetic cohesion due to their complimentary scale, form, detail and materials
  2. their contribution to both the Brookes Street townscape and the precinct of Gothic-influence church buildings which includes Holy Trinity Church and Rectory;
  3. the modest but fine quality and detailing of the hall;
  4. the fine and elaborate quality of the crafted elements of the church building, in particular the stained galls windows and ornaments of the building fabric and timber stone and plaster.’
  1. [38]
    Based on the criteria for entry into the heritage registers at both State and local level, I accept the Appellant’s submission that the aesthetic presentation of Gregory Place is central to its cultural heritage significance.
  1. [39]
    In respect of the Existing Structural Additions detailed at paragraph [5] above, Council acknowledged that those additions to Gregory Place did not unreasonably impact upon the existing cultural heritage significance. Mr Trotter, for the Council put it into these words:

‘I’m happy to acknowledge, your Honour, that those alterations have been carried out under the stewardship of – that have been carried out – the café, and the office, and the house on the eastern side, are considered to be entirely compatible with the values of the heritage place. And no criticism is directed at anything to do with those features – the cafes, the house to the east and the office to the north. So whilst there have been additions or alterations to the place, those additions or alterations are entirely in keeping and compatible with the values of the place.’[38]

  1. [40]
    Mr Scott, for the Appellant, agreed that the existing additions to Gregory Place were compatible with the cultural heritage significance of the church.[39] However, Council’s heritage expert, Ms Ruth Woods, expressed the view that the incremental changes to date had impacted on the degree to which Gregory Place displays the principal characteristics of its class of cultural place.[40] Notwithstanding that evidence, it is common ground between the parties that Gregory Place, in its present state, exhibits a high degree of cultural heritage significance, the impact upon which is to be determined.

Will the development unacceptably impact the cultural significance of Gregory Place?

  1. [41]
    The Appellant says the proposal will not unacceptably impact on the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place and that it will in fact provide appropriately for its future protection.[41] Further, it is said, by reference to the Town Planning Joint Expert Report, that the entirety of the church will be unaffected by the proposal in terms of direct physical changes and relationships between new and old elements,[42] with the only physical changes occurring to the vestry at the rear of the building. Specifically, this will involve the removal of the roof and the construction of an access core on which the Pod will be built. I accept the Appellant’s submission that, in terms of the direct physical changes, as opposed to purely aesthetic changes, the DA does not substantially alter Gregory Place.
  1. [42]
    But this finding is not determinative of this appeal. As outlined above, and submitted by the Appellant, the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place is determined centrally by reference to the aesthetic presentation of the structure. A mere lack of direct physical changes will not necessarily preclude an unacceptable impact upon the cultural heritage significance of a place.
  1. [43]
    The Appellant further says that Gregory Place will continue to demonstrate the principal characteristics of a late 19th century church by its form, materials, detailing and appearance as viewed from Brookes Street and, despite the proposal, will continue to present as a substantial, ornate brick church of the late 1880s in terms of Criterion D of the QHR.
  1. [44]
    The Council, on the other hand, relies on the evidence of Ms Woods, its heritage expert who opposes the approval of the DA. In the Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects, Ms Woods explains;

‘The combined impacts of the proposal and the incremental changes to date will remove significant components of its principal characteristics and the building will look less and less like a church…The collection extent of new work will now dominate the original buildings. The combined effect will impact on the building to be viewed as an example of the ecclesiastical work.’[43]

Photomontage Evidence

  1. [45]
    I turn now to consideration of the photomontages[44] put in evidence by the Appellant. These photomontages depict the visual presentation of Gregory Place from various vantage points along Brookes Street. The principal of the Appellant, Mr James Russell, an architect, acknowledged in his statement[45] that;

‘The purpose of the photomontages was to capture a streetscape or view of the proposed development as the human eye would see it and to place the view we capture in context. To be in context, the view must not distort the scale or relationship between buildings along a street and the view must not take in a greater area than what our eyes see.’[46]

  1. [46]
    At the hearing, a considerable amount of discussion centred upon the degree to which the photomontages provided by the Appellant were representative of the aesthetic presentation of Gregory Place. Council’s position was that the photomontages materially understated the visual impact of the proposal, again relying upon the evidence of Ms Woods, who said in the Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects:

‘the 3D images provide a wide angle view of the proposal which distorts the proximity, height and width of the tower to the church and the impacts of the street views and they do no accurately illustrate the impact on the church.’[47]

  1. [47]
    In her individual report, Ms Woods said:

‘By way of illustrating the lack of impact, the Appellant has produced a series of photomontages showing the place from Brookes Street in ‘before’ and ‘after’ shots.

  1. I cannot reconcile the photomontages with what I can see using the focal range of my eye. The images produced are taken with a wide angle lens which includes more of the surrounding high rise development and has less emphasis on the open space beside and above the church. These photomontages set the church and the proposed work into the background and emphasise the height and scale of the surrounding high rise buildings.
  2. At Appendix A, I have included photographs which I have taken which demonstrate the differences in setting when the focal length of the camera is set at less than 35mm which is considered a ‘normal’ eye view. A focal length of less than 30mm is considered a wide angle view.
  3. At Appendix B, I have included a mark-up of the Appellant’s drawing D.08 which illustrates that the spire of the church will not be higher than the proposed structure when viewed centrally to the church from the opposite footpath in Brookes Street. This is contrary to the photomontage of the Church produced by the Appellant.
  4. I respectfully acknowledge that it is a matter for the Court to determine, but I contend that the photomontages produced by the Appellant do not provide a true view of the Church, the context of its surroundings or the height of the proposed structure relative to the Church and its spire.’[48]
  1. [48]
    It is the Council’s ultimate submission that because the photomontages were produced using a lens with a focal length of 18mm or less, the perception, scale and relationship of the Gregory Place to its surroundings have been distorted in a way that does not represent accurately the presentation to the human eye.[49]
  1. [49]
    In response, the Appellant relied on the evidence of Mr Scott, who said:

‘The 3D images show that from Brookes Street, with the tall new buildings on both sides of the Church, the proposed development appears as if it is located behind the church and is in scale with its existing neighbours, although much smaller in volume’[50]

  1. [50]
    In cross-examination, Mr Scott was asked about the visual effect of using different lens focal lengths. When asked whether the use of an 18mm lens would approximate what the human eye would observe, Mr Scott eventually responded:

‘I just – I keep going back to what – what I see when I’m standing in the street, which is,  I use my human eyes to see the church and its neighbours.’[51]

  1. [51]
    To assist the Court in understanding the challenge to of the photomontage evidence, Ms Woods prepared a series of photographs of Gregory Place taken from various vantage points along Brookes Street, utilising lenses of different focal lengths.[52] These images simply serve to show the visual presentation of Gregory Place as a result of varying focal lengths. Specifically, the photographs depict the difference between utilising an 18mm focal length and a 35mm focal length.
  1. [52]
    Notwithstanding the Council’s position, based on Ms Woods evidence that the photomontage evidence distorted the true naked eye presentation of the DA, I consider this evidence still allows for some assessment to be made regarding the aesthetic presentation of Gregory Place at various points along Brookes Street. In other words, even utilising a wide-angle lens of 18mm, it is still possible to appreciate the visual presentation of the proposed structure atop Gregory Place.
  1. [53]
    I return now to the Appellant’s submission that, with the proposal in place, Gregory Place will continue to present as a substantial, ornate brick church of the late 1880s as per Criterion D of the QHR. On this issue, I prefer the evidence of Ms Woods. I am of the view that the proposal will result in Gregory Place losing its distinctive character as a church.
  1. [54]
    As indicated above, I accept that there will be limited direct physical changes to the structure of the Gregory Place. However, in the Town Planning Joint Expert Report the proposed structure has been visually described as follows:

‘an atypical tall building addition at the rear of the church…in shape the combined structure looks like an Olympic torch…. A short airport control tower or water tower might be another description’[53]

  1. [55]
    I do not consider that such an addition allows for Gregory Place to retain its presentation as a ‘substantial, ornate brick church’ as reflected in Criterion D of the QHR. The construction of the Pod, positioned above Gregory Place, albeit to the rear of the building, is not sympathetic to the traditional presentation and aesthetics of a church building. As to the Appellant’s argument that the proposal will introduce a layer of contemporary architecture and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the older building, I cannot accept that. The construction of the pod will dominate Gregory Place and seriously erode the present presentation of the building as a church. In this regard, I again accept the evidence of Ms Woods who said:

‘The proposal is not compatible with the retention of the cultural heritage significance of the place as it diminishes the impact of the spire as a principal characteristic of the church. The proposed tower to the rear of the church is significantly higher than the spire of the church and the spire becomes difficult to read as the highest part of the original church and would no longer be the highest part of the church.’[54]

  1. [56]
    As to the spire, the Appellants say it will not from all views along Brookes Street, appear shorter than the proposed Pod. The Appellant relies on Exhibit 14 to support that. This contains two hand drawn sketches of the Pod placed behind a photograph of Gregory Place taken from street level. These hand drawn sketches were prepared by Mr Arno King, a visual amenity expert called by the Council. I accept that it may be the case that, from certain vantage points along the Brookes Street frontage of Gregory Place, the spire of the church will appear higher than the highest point of the Pod. This, however, does not hide the reality of the situation. The Pod will be roughly 14m taller than the spire of church and some 35m above ground level. As Ms Woods said, and which I accept:

‘Traditionally the spire of a church was representative of the power and strength of religion as well as it was seen as reaching for the skies in a celestial gesture. The proposal diminishes the value of the spire as the principal characteristic of the church as it will no longer be, or even be seen to be the highest element of the church.’[55]

  1. [57]
    In a similar proposition, the Appellant argued that the proposed Pod will appear as if it is positioned towards the rear of the church, rather than a structural extrusion from within Gregory Place. In cross-examination of Mr King, Council’s visual amenity expert, this evidence was given:

‘MR WILLIAMSON:  Can I make this – I suggest this to you. The tower form, or  the pod as it comes out from behind the church in image 12. You’re not immediately struck by the proposition that it will emerge out of the church. It looks as if it sits behind the church, doesn’t it?

MR KING:   From this viewpoint yes, it does.

….

MR WILLIAMSON:  And what the viewer will appreciate is that there is a   separation distance between the pod and the back of the spire, correct?

MR KING:   They will recognise there is a space, yes, between the two.’

  1. [58]
    As with the issue concerning the relative visual perception of the spire dealt with above, it may be that, from certain angles and vantage points, the Pod may be perceived as a structure constructed behind the church, perhaps situated on a lot to the rear of Gregory Place. However, in reality, the Pod will overhang the main hall of Gregory Place by some 4.2 meters. Notwithstanding the above concession by the Council’s visual amenity expert, I am not persuaded as to how the proposed structure will present as anything other than a building that emerges out of the rear of Gregory Place. One would need only to walk North-West along Brookes Street to clearly observe that the structure in fact ascends from the rear of Gregory Place, thereby fully appreciating the extent to which the Pod overhangs the main hall of the church.
  1. [59]
    Even if one were to conclude that the Pod was separately positioned behind the church, as opposed to above it, the aesthetic appearance of the proposed structure above Gregory Place would still, in my view, unacceptably interfere with the extent to which Gregory Place visually resembles a church. It is clear to me that the construction of the proposed structure would unacceptably reduce the extent to which Gregory Place presents as a ‘substantial, ornate brick church’ in accordance with the QHR. I do not accept Appellant’s submission that Gregory Place will continue to demonstrate the principal characteristics of a late 19th century church by its form, materials, detailing and appearance as viewed from Brookes Street.

The Heritage Place Code and the Burra Charter

  1. [60]
    The relevant provisions of the Heritage Place Code, including the seminal Performance Criteria, are set out in Appendix B. The stated purpose of Heritage Place Code is to ensure development does not detract from the cultural heritage significance of a heritage place and to ensure any re-use of a heritage place is compatible with the premises cultural heritage significance.[56] The Acceptable Solutions, which flow from the various Performance Criteria within the Code, clearly and repeatedly reference the requirement for the provision of a report verifying that a development application has been prepared in accordance with the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance 1998 (‘Burra Charter’). In the Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects they agreed that the logical process of assessing the impact of a proposal on the cultural heritage significance of a heritage place, such as Gregory Place, begins by reference to the Burra Charter.[57]
  1. [61]
    The references to cultural heritage significance contained within the Burra Charter establish a framework and guidelines which provide greater clarification of the Performance Criteria enunciated within the Heritage Place Code under City Plan 2000. Fundamentally, the Burra Charter advocates a cautious approach to developmental change and states, ‘do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained.’ [58]
  1. [62]
    In Mr Scott’s Heritage Impact Report[59] prepared for the Appellant he says,

‘As discussed above the proposed tower development is ambitious in scale relative to the Church but will have minimal impact on the setting of the former Church and Hall, given the visual context of its existing neighbours.’[60]

  1. [63]
    In cross-examination, Mr Scott was pressed as to what was meant by his description of the proposal as ‘ambitious’. This was the exchange:

‘MR TROTTER:  Talking about the scale issue. Now is ‘ambitious’ a word of particular meaning in an architectural sense, or have you used it in the ordinary sense?

MR SCOTT:  What I was referring to was it was tall, and that it’s – it’s a large object, and that was my meaning of the ambitious in that sentence.

MR TROTTER:  So anything that’s tall or large is ambitious. You can’t be meaning that, can you?

MR SCOTT:  Well, I was – I was saying compared –sorry, I was wanting to imply that compared to the house which is now an office, to the eastern side of the church, this was a larger or more ambitious proposal.

MR TROTTER: But with the greatest respect to you, Mr Scott, you said that the proposed tower is ambitious in scale relative to the church, haven’t you?

MR SCOTT: Yes, I was wanting to say that it – it stands up to the scale of the  church. It’s not a small proposal relative to the church, but I’d be happy to step through with you what I meant in terms of it’s in scale with the church.

MR TROTTER:Well, we’ll come to all that in a moment. So when you say it’s ambitious in scale relative to the church, you are not saying that even you think its pushing the envelope in scale?

MR SCOTT: That’s correct. I think it’s tall and, that may have a - take some time to understand how it would sit relative to the church in the streetscape, but it – I don’t think it’s out of scale with the church in that context.’[61]

  1. [64]
    I don’t find Mr Scott’s explanation of the context of his use of the word ‘ambitious’ as very convincing. It seems to me, from the photomontage evidence and the schematic plans submitted with the DA, that the visual presentation of the proposed structure is aptly described as ‘ambitious’ in scale relative to Gregory Place as Mr Scott said in his report above. In light of this finding, it is therefore difficult to reconcile the DA with the overall strategy of the Burra Charter which clearly emphasises that ‘as little as possible’ should be done in order to maintain cultural heritage significance and therefore comply with the requirements of the Heritage Place Code under City Plan 2000.

Setting of Gregory Place

  1. [65]
    The Appellant submits, by reference to the evidence of Mr Scott, that the proposed structure will have minimal impact on the setting of Gregory Place, given the surrounding context in which the proposed development is to take place. Gregory Place and Gregory Hall are recognised as forming part of a ‘civic precinct’ which includes buildings exhibiting cultural heritage significance as well as buildings being examples of substantial modern development. In the Town Planning Joint Expert Report, Mr Buckley, for the Appellant said,

‘The degree to which this is now a definable precinct of civic functions…is affected by substantial modern commercial development used for private commercial purposes in that area, including, as is the case on the subject land, within the building themselves.’

  1. [66]
    I agree with the Appellant’s submission that the surrounding context of Gregory Place has changed significantly over time. The church and hall are not located in a pristine rural open field. The buildings surrounding Gregory Place are of a substantially modern character. As such, the Pod itself is compatible and contextually consistent with these surrounding buildings. In this regard, the Appellant relies on the Joint Report of Heritage Expert Architects in which the following is articulated:

‘The height and appearance of the proposed office and caretakers flat is visually in context with the neighbouring buildings…’[62]

  1. [67]
    However, this proposition, if accepted, does not thereby exclude an unreasonable impact on the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place. Council says the proposal, although consistent with the surrounding building context, will unacceptably impact the setting of Gregory Place. It is true that ‘setting’ does not explicitly form part of the heritage citations at either State or local level, but it would be incorrect to proceed on the basis that the setting is not relevant to an assessment of the impact on cultural heritage significance. The Burra Charter states, ‘Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.’[63] Subsequently in the charter, ‘setting’ is defined as ‘the immediate and extended environment of a place that is part of or contributes to its cultural significance and distinctive character.’ [64]
  1. [68]
    The Appellant argues that the surrounding modern development has already encroached upon Gregory Place in a manner that influences the way in which the church is perceived for a substantial part of the view along Brookes Street. It provides a background to the church of substantially modern multi-level buildings reducing the airspace around Gregory Place.[65] I accept this submission. It is correct to say that as a passer-by walks along Brookes Street, Gregory Place is presently framed within a backdrop of predominantly modern commercial buildings, akin to the proposed structure the subject of the proposal. As Mr King said in his evidence:

‘MR WILLIAMSON:  So the viewer on the Southern Side of Brookes Street, for the  majority of the walk along Brookes Street, will see Gregory Church framed by or within the backdrop, Bechtel, or Metro building, correct?

MR KING:   Correct.

MR WILLIAMSON:  And what the Bechtel and the Metro Building do is they clearly  encroach in the airspace, the blue sky, around the church, don’t they?

MR KING:   They do.

MR WILLIAMSON:  And, you see, if the subject proposal is approved, it will do exactly what Bechtel and the Metro building, correct?

MR KING:   It will, yes.’[66]

  1. [69]
    However, notwithstanding this, to my mind, Gregory Place retains a relevant and very clear separation from the surrounding modern development, in terms of the airspace above and around the church. True it is this setting has been altered over time and subject to encroachment from modern development, but no structure sits above Gregory Place in the manner here.
  1. [70]
    The cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place is aesthetically expressed by the presence of open space above the hall of the church and as a result of the spire remaining substantially set back from any adjoining development. This allows Gregory Place to visually present as a separate entity in its own right. The Appellant, incorrectly in my view, submits that the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place is maintained simply because the proposed development will be located behind the front façade of Gregory Place, thereby enabling the ornate detailing, stained glass windows, buttress and spire to be viewed from Brookes Street.
  1. [71]
    It is the volume of uninvaded space around Gregory Place, projecting to the sky above the church, which allows an observer, from any point along Brookes Street, to fully appreciate the aesthetic value and therefore the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place.
  1. [72]
    It is relevant therefore, in assessing the DA against the Heritage Place Code under City Plan 2000, to have regard to Article 8 of the Burra Charter which states ‘Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate setting. This includes retention of the visual and sensory setting, as well as the retention of spiritual and other cultural relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place.’[67] The proposal will plainly infringe upon the setting of Gregory Place to a far greater magnitude than any of the surrounding development.
  1. [73]
    For the above reasons, I am of the view that the DA conflicts with the Heritage Place Code under City Plan 2000, specifically Performance Criteria 1 and 2. The evidence before me falls short of establishing that the DA was prepared in accordance with the Guidelines of the Burra Charter.

Fortitude Valley Neighbourhood Plan

  1. [74]
    The Fortitude Valley Neighbourhood Plan under City Plan 2000 contains specific additional local planning requirements. Where a conflict arises with the generic requirements of the City Plan 2000, the Fortitude Valley Neighbourhood Plan will prevail.[68] The relevant provisions of this neighbourhood plan are set out in Appendix B. Of particular relevance is the code relating to the Built Form[69], which set out various Performance Criteria and Acceptable Solutions.
  1. [75]
    Performance Criteria 1 states, inter alia:

‘P1  Building heights and bulk must:

  • be consistent with the intended scale and character of the relevant precinct
  • be compatible with the built form and context of adjoining buildings

….

  • provide a transition to lower scale heritage places and precincts’
  1. [76]
    Under cross-examination, Mr Scott, for the Appellant, maintained the view that the proposed structure would be compatible with Gregory Place. He stated:

‘I’m telling his Honour that it is a modern extension to the church which is carefully located at the rear of the church so that in perspective terms, looking at it from the street and fitting in with its very modern neighbours, it is an appropriate addition to the church, yes.

…

I think the PoD contrasts strongly with the church, but I don’t think that necessarily makes it incompatible.

…

-whilst the proposal wouldn’t fit inside the church, in terms of volume, it would be a smaller volume than the church, which, in my opinion, gives an indication of the scale of the proposal relative to the scale of the church as being compatible.’[70]

  1. [77]
    In terms of the materials intended for the proposed Pod, Mr Scott said,

‘Those new additions (Existing Structural Additions) are modern, and they sit comfortably in comparison with the church, and I think the new proposal will equally be similarly seen as a modern building which is in keeping with the church.’[71]

  1. [78]
    Mr King, Council’s visual amenity expert, maintained the proposal would be incompatible with Gregory Place and gave the following evidence:

‘MR TROTTER:  Now, in terms of visual assessment what is your comment about  that?

MR KING:   Look, I consider it could be called an atypical tall building,  particularly because it has the bulk at the top, and then sits upon that central core.

MR TROTTER:   All right. Now, if you then go down to paragraph 40C you’ll see  that various descriptions have been applied to the combined structure, looking like an Olympic torch, with the pillar reminiscent of the handle, and the five level pod the flame source. And then a short airport control tower or water tower might be another description?

MR KING:    Yes.

MR TROTTER:   Now, I’m simply asking you whether you’ve read those   descriptions before. Do you have a view as to whether those descriptions convey, in broad terms, accurately the image of the proposal?

MR KING:    Yes. I’ve had a look at those terms and I must say that when I first saw the drawing, I immediately thought of an airport control tower and a water tower. They-They were the images I saw when I looked initially at those drawings.

MR TROTTER:   And in that context, do you regard something of that general  description as being compatible or incompatible with the existing aesthetics of the heritage place?

MR KING:    Look I consider they would be incompatible because, basically,  they shout – or the form shouts very loudly being so atypical against the church, which formally was the dominant – or currently is the dominant building within that space.’[72]

  1. [79]
    I prefer and accept the evidence of Mr King. As a matter of impression, and by reference to the evidence before me, I cannot accept that the proposal would be compatible with Gregory Place, in respect of the intended scale, built form and character, being an adjoining building within the relevant precinct. I consider the proposal to fails to meet Performance Criteria 1 of the Built Form – Overall Code delineated by the Fortitude Valley Neighbourhood Plan.

Ancillary Proposal – Trafficable Roof to the Existing Cafe

  1. [80]
    The DA also seeks approval for new decking to be constructed atop the roof of the existing café at the front of Gregory Place to enable the roof of the café to be trafficable by patrons. The Heritage Impact Report prepared by Mr Scott for the Appellant describes this aspect of the DA as follows:

‘CAFÉ ROOF AND STAIRS

The proposed trafficable roof over the lowset café will have a minimal impact on the Brookes Street view of the former Church as balustrading is to be a simple galvanised mesh (chain wire or similar) – selected to maximise transparency and suit the style of the existing café building. The new access staircase is to be of lightweight construction and will not be supported by, or attached to, the former Church. In accord with best conservation practice, the staircase will be detailed to be able to be removed in the future, if required.’[73]

  1. [81]
    This facet of the DA was not the primary focus of the appeal, with a greater weight of the discussion afforded to the issues surrounding the construction of the Pod. Nonetheless, Ms Woods gave evidence for Council that the construction of the trafficable roof would further impact the degree to which Gregory Place exhibits the principal characteristics of a church building in accordance with the citation contained within the QHR. This was the exchange:

‘MR WILLIAMSON:  And they will be under no misapprehension that the church is  exhibiting the principal characteristics of a substantial ornate brick church, correct?

MS WOODS:   No, there is – there are further elements to be considered. If this  proposal does proceed, you’ve got the trafficable roof and you’ve got the balustrade which will be very much in view in that photograph. And with people and activity and, who knows, possibly even umbrellas to shade the people and the activity when they’re having their coffee, that is really going to obscure the face of the church, even without that, the balustrade will – will impact on that façade.’

  1. [82]
    On this issue, I prefer the evidence of Ms Woods. In my view, construction of the trafficable roof would unreasonably impact on the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place and would not provide for the future protection of its cultural heritage significance. Rather, it would diminish the extent to which Gregory Place building demonstrates the principal characteristics of a substantial, ornate, brick church. The front façade of the church is incontrovertibly the distinctive visual characteristic visual of any church.
  1. [83]
    Although the café is presently positioned at the front of Gregory Place, it by no means obscures the clear vision of the front façade of Gregory Place. The construction of an additional trafficable roof above the café, would in my view, necessarily obscure the view from Brookes Street of the front façade of the church. I accept the Appellant’s submission that the transparent balustrade will have a minimal impact in terms of obscuring the view of the front façade. Notwithstanding that, I accept the evidence given by Ms Woods. The roof will undoubtedly result in necessary additional objects such as tables, chairs and umbrellas obstructing the view of the front façade of Gregory Place.
  1. [84]
    Performance Criteria 3 under the Heritage Place Code of City Plan 2000 provides that proposals must provide for the ‘use, interpretation and management’ of heritage places. While the addition of a trafficable roof above the café, at the front of Gregory Place, would arguably provide for a unique use of the church, this use cannot be reconciled with Performance Criteria 1 which requires that the proposal not damage or diminish cultural heritage significance.
  1. [85]
    In my view, this aspect of the proposal will unreasonably diminish the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place and cut across the Heritage Place Code in City Plan 2000. This aspect of the DA must be rejected.

Statutory Assessment Regime – Conflict

  1. [86]
    Section 326 of SPA provides;

326 Other decision rules

  1. The assessment manager's decision must not conflict with a relevant instrument unless—
  1. the conflict is necessary to ensure the decision complies with a State planning regulatory provision; or
  2. there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict; or
  3. the conflict arises because of a conflict between—
  1. 2 or more relevant instruments of the same type, and the decision best achieves the purposes of the instruments; or

Example of a conflict between relevant instruments—

a conflict between 2 State planning policies

  1. 2 or more aspects of any 1 relevant instrument, and the decision best achieves the purposes of the instrument.

Example of a conflict between aspects of a relevant instrument—

a conflict between 2 codes in a planning scheme

  1. In this section—

relevant instrument means a matter or thing mentioned in section 313(2) or 314(2), other than a State planning regulatory provision, against which code assessment or impact assessment is carried out.

(emphasis added)

  1. [87]
    The Court is primarily required to consider whether the DA conflicts with the relevant planning scheme provisions of the City Plan 2000, and by implication, City Plan 2014. In the event that a conflict is found to exist, as here, between the DA and the relevant planning scheme provisions it is necessary for the Court to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to approve the DA notwithstanding such conflict. As I have said, I consider approval of the DA would result in significant conflict with the relevant planning scheme, City Plan 2000.

Sufficient Grounds to Warrant Approval

  1. [88]
    Any conflict between development proposals and planning schemes must be clearly identified to come within the ambit of section 326 of SPA.[74] As I have earlier said, Council’s case is that the proposal fundamentally conflicts with the provisions of the relevant schemes under consideration.  The Appellant disputes any such conflict exists but submits that, in the event a conflict is found, sufficient grounds exist which would warrant approval. The Appellant outlines the following grounds:

‘The grounds are as follows:

  1. the proposed development, if approved, will contribute to the diverse and interesting mix of land use and architecture encouraged by the planning scheme provisions for Fortitude Valley; (‘Ground A’)
  2. the proposed development will greatly contribute to an efficient and attractive urban form; (‘Ground B’)
  3. there is an absence of unacceptable amenity impacts associated with the proposed development; (‘Ground C’) and
  4. the proposal provides additional economic life for a Queensland Heritage Registered place, contributing towards retention and protection for future generations.’[75](‘Ground D’)
  1. [89]
    Supplementary grounds were also raised by Mr Russell, of the Appellant, namely:

’36Presently, the return Trish and I get from leasing the Church, the café and the office space on the land does not cover the maintenance costs of the building (‘Ground E’)

37The proposal will generate additional rental income for us, by the leasing of three levels of office space, which will assist in financing the future preservation of the church.’[76](‘Ground F’)

  1. [90]
    In Synergy Property Partners No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[77], this Court stated the approach to be taken in respect of ‘sufficient grounds’ to overcome conflict with planning scheme provisions, namely;

‘Grounds

[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.

[35] The term “grounds” is defined in Sch 3 of the SPA as:

“1. Grounds means matters of public interest.

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

[36] In Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd (as trustee for Westlink Industrial Trust), the Court of Appeal endorsed the three stage test which had previously been pronounced in Weightman v Gold Coast City Council 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.”

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

  1. [91]
    I have set out above the manner in which the DA conflicts with relevant planning scheme provisions, specifically within City Plan 2000 and City Plan 2014. I do not consider that the grounds, either individually or collectively raised by the Appellant are sufficient to overcome the conflict that I have found in respect of the relevant planning scheme so as to justify approval.
  1. [92]
    I accept the Respondent’s submission on Grounds A and B. Both are framed on the basis that the proposal involves an absence of adverse aesthetic impacts, contrary to my finding. Ground A speaks of the DA contributing to the ‘diverse and interesting mix of land use and architecture’ while Ground B speaks of ‘an efficient and attractive urban form’. I have found that the proposal is in conflict with the relevant planning scheme provisions as a result of detrimental impacts on cultural heritage significance which are fundamentally manifested by the aesthetic presentation of the proposal. That conflict is not overcome by reference to asserted positive aesthetic values of the proposal. Grounds A are B are not sufficient to justify the conflict I have found.
  1. [93]
    In a similar vein, the Appellant cites the ‘absence of unacceptable amenity impacts associated with the proposed development’ as a sufficient ground to overcome conflict with the relevant planning scheme provisions. I agree with Council’s submission that the concept of ‘amenity’ is so wide[78] so as to necessarily encapsulate the same adverse aesthetic impacts that I have found above in respect of the DA. Ground C is likewise not sufficient to justify the conflict I have found.
  1. [94]
    In relation to Ground D, there was no evidence led suggesting that the proposal is necessary for the maintenance and retention of the church and by implication, the cultural heritage significance which Gregory Place exhibits. If this were the case, the proposal would, in any event, need to also comply with the Heritage Place Code, specifically Performance Criteria 1 and Performance Criteria 3, in providing for the future protection of Gregory Place. I am not satisfied that the DA is necessary in this respect and accordingly Ground D is insufficient as a ground to overcome conflict with the relevant planning scheme.
  1. [95]
    Grounds E and F, which are aptly described as supplementary grounds, relate purely to the private circumstances of an interested party, being the director of the Applicant. Consistent with the definition of ‘grounds’ denoted in Schedule 3 of SPA, these private circumstances are not relevant as grounds to overcome conflict with planning scheme provisions and as such Grounds E and F are insufficient.

Conclusion

  1. [96]
    The proposal, the subject of this appeal, is incompatible with the maintenance of the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place. In my view, it can only be described as the antithesis of compatibility. Traditional structures such as Gregory Place exhibit a fine degree of cultural heritage significance which reflect community values. Such buildings are cherished for their cultural heritage significance, demonstrated through their aesthetic presentation within the context of a constantly evolving streetscape. In the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill, ‘we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us’.[79] Gregory Place currently displays a high degree of cultural heritage significance fundamentally through its aesthetic presentation within the context of modern commercial development. It is the volume of open space around and above the church which permits Gregory Place to present as a separate entity. This, in turn, allows an observer of the church to appreciate the principal characteristics of a substantial, ornate, brick church of the late 1880s, in Brisbane. Not only does the DA fail to provide for the protection of cultural heritage significance, it would substantially erode the semblance of cultural heritage significance that Gregory Place presently displays.
  1. [97]
    If the proposal was to be approved, it would cut across the provisions of City Plan 2000 in respect of cultural heritage significance, specifically with reference to the Heritage Place Code. The proposal unacceptably impacts on the cultural heritage significance of Gregory Place. The appeal should be dismissed.

Orders

  1. [98]
    I make the following orders:
  1. Appeal dismissed
  2. I will hear the parties on any necessary consequential orders.

APPENDIX A

GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

The Delegate/Council refused the application for the following reasons:

  1. The applicant did not submit a report demonstrating the proposal’s accordance with the ‘Burra Charter’ as required by the Acceptable Solutions of the Heritage Place Code.
  2. The proposal is contrary to Performance Criteria P2 of the Heritage Place Code as the proximity of the new structure to the existing heritage fabric is considered to diminish the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place, particularly Criterion E of the State Heritage Listing, relating to the aesthetic characteristics of the former church.  The setting, which on the site comprise mainly the space above the heritage structure, is considered to be insufficiently protected as a consequence of the intrusion of the proposed new structure which sits above the main body of the former church.  The former church is also recognised as being part of a precinct of Gothic influenced church buildings and this precinct is also considered to be comprised by the proposal.
  3. The proposal is contrary to Performance Criteria P3 and P4 of the Heritage Place Code in that it requires demolition of a section of the roof structure at the rear of the property.  There is insufficient evidence provided in the application that the rood proposed to be demolished at the rear of the property is not original heritage fabric.  By reference to Article 15.3 of the Burra Charter (1999) relating to Change, support is therefore not given for its removal.  Research would be required to be undertaken and drawings prepared which clearly show and differentiate between – original heritage fabric to be retained; original heritage fabric to be demolished; more recent existing fabric to be retained (dated where necessary); more recent existing fabric to be demolished; and new work.  The applicant was not requested to demonstrate this research as Council is not supportive of the entire scheme, whether or not the removal of the roof structure could be supported.

It is noted that the proposed height of the development would necessitate a higher requirement for structural design and fire safety.  It is likely that the existing church would be overly exposed to fire source features and would require significant modifications with regards to fire safety measures (fire rated structure, fire compartmentalisation, smoke exhaust, fire hydrants, hoe reels, extinguishers and sprinklers).  These additional elements are likely to result in significant losses of heritage value and modifications to the original fabric.

  1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Purpose of the Heritage Place Code in that the scale and proximity of the proposed new building over the top of the former church is considered to detract from the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place and precinct of Gothic influenced church buildings which the former church forms a part.  The proposal is likely to damage or diminish the cultural heritage significance of the place.  Further, the applicant did not provide sufficient detail in the proposal package to assess the extent of the modification or alteration to the existing fabric of the Heritage Place.
  2. The proposal fails to achieve compliance with Acceptable Solution A16 and is inconsistent with Performance Criteria P15 of the Centre Design Code as the proposed building design is not considered to contribute to the desired theme and atmosphere of the centre; particularly, the uniform treatment of the pan form through the proposed additional five new levels as expressed to the external façade.  The built form appears as overly bulky and lacks projections or sufficient variation in the materiality so as to reduce the bulk.  It is also considered that the proposed access shaft (left and stairs) is overly bulky and lacking in detail which reinforces the bulk of the building.
  3. The proposal fails to achieve compliance with Acceptable Solution A16 and is inconsistent with Performance Criteria P16 of the Centre Design Code as the proposed fenestration to the external façade for ‘Level 1’ to ‘Level 3’ lacks sun control devices and is not considered to provide texture to the façade, to enrich the subtropical character or shade the building.  The proposed development does not provide screening or projecting elements which cast shadows and help reduce the impact of the sun on internal areas.
  4. The proposal fails to achieve compliance with Acceptable Solution A21 and is inconsistent with Performance Criteria P21 of the Centre Design Code in that while the existing church has had a number of relatively large scale developments occur on adjacent sites, the proposed development is of a similar scale above the church (albeit restricted to the rear half of the building).  The existing church maintains a volume of space around it which is open to the sky above and is afforded a degree of separation from other nearby buildings, such that the Church can be appreciated as an entity in its own right.  The inclusion of the new development above the church is considered to extinguish the legibility of the existing Church as an entity in its own right within its own site.  It is therefore considered that the proposed development fails to respect the form, scale and massing of the existing traditional building (the Church).
  5. The proposal fails to achieve compliance with A7.5 and is contrary to P7 of the Transport, Access, Parking and Servicing Code as A7.4 of the TAPS Code requires the proposed development to provide approximately 23 car parking spaces (definite numbers are not possible to determine as the applicant omitted gross floor area from all lodgement documentation including plans and reports).  However, the site provides only eight parking spaces in total – for both the existing development plus the additional GFA proposed as part of this application; this application does not propose any additional parking spaces to that which are already provided onsite, despite proposing an additional (approximately) 696m2 GFA.  It is in this respect that the proposed development fails to achieve adequate provisions for on-site parking as required by P7.

REFERRAL AGENCIES

The following Concurrence Agencies were identified for this application:

Department of State Development, Infrastructure & Planning (Brisbane SARA)

SUBMISSIONS

No properly made submissions were received for this application.

APPEAL RIGHTS

In accordance with section 335(1)(o) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, the rights of appeal must be stated for the applicant and any submitters.  Attached is an extract from the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 that details your appeal rights and the appeal rights of any submitters.

 

                           APPENDIX B

CITY PLAN 2000 PLANNING SCHEME PROVISION

REFERENCE TO ‘CULTURAL HERITAGE’ WITHIN PLANNING SCHEME

Heritage Place Code

Purpose – The purpose of this Code is to:

  • Ensure that development does not detract from the cultural heritage significance of a heritage place or heritage precinct
  • Ensure re-use of a heritage place is compatible with the premise cultural heritage significance

P1 – The proposal must not damage or diminish the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place or heritage precinct, but provides for its future protection

P2 – The proposal must be based on, and take account of, all aspects of the cultural significance of the heritage place or heritage precinct

P3 – The proposal must protect the fabric and setting of the heritage place or heritage precinct, while providing for its us, interpretation and management

P4 – The proposal must be based on the issues relevant to the conservation of the heritage place or heritage precinct.

Centre Design Code

P15 – Building design must contribute to the desired theme and atmosphere of the Centre and take into consideration its traditional character

P16 – Fenestration and sun control must be used

P21 – Infill development or alterations in a Centre must respect the form, scale and massing of existing traditional buildings to create a coherent streetscape except where a Local Plan or Centre Concept Plan applying to the Centre specifies otherwise.

Fortitude Valley Neighbourhood Plan

Development Principle 2.6 – Protect and enhance Fortitude Valley’s special heritage and character through the retention, refurbishment and reuse of heritage places and character buildings. New development will favour the retention of existing buildings, sensitively integrate infill development with heritage places, reflect and complement Fortitude Valley’s character and maintain the prominence of local landmarks and vistas.

Development Principle 2.7 – Reinforce the varied and diverse architecture and urban form that distinguishes Fortitude Valley from the CBD and other parts of Brisbane, through innovative building construction, architecture and urban design that reflects the creative and heritage values of Fortitude Valley and is responsive to each site’s specific shape, size, context and setting.

P1 – Building heights and bulk must:

  • be consistent with the intended scale and character of the relevant precinct
  • be compatible with the built form and context of adjoining buildings
  • retain an appropriate relationship with the established streetscape
  • provide a transition to lower scale heritage places and precincts
  • be commensurate with the size of the lot
  • not compromise significant views and vistas towards heritage places
  • maintain views between Light Street Hill and Bowen Hill

Strategic Plan to Achieve Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEO)

3.3.2.2 – Require development to enhance the amenity, environmental and cultural contexts of its locality through:

  1. (a)
    human scale – urban areas, Centre and facilities designed to a human scale
  1. (b)
    character buildings – protecting existing buildings that contribute to the City’s character
  1. (c)
    enhancing character – development that is sympathetic to the character of surrounding areas
  1. (d)
    Centres – integrating retailing, service, cultural, community facilities and public transport in Centres
  1. (e)
    transport networks – designing and landscaping major movement networks to minimise impacts on adjacent areas or green space values
  1. (f)
    legibility – development that is designed so that residents and visitors can easily find their way around urban areas and facilities
  1. (g)
    consistency – preventing the intrusion of incompatible uses
  1. (h)
    sense of place – development that creates a feeling of belonging and places with a distinct character

1.7.1– The challenge:

Brisbane contains a wide range of places and precinct of:

Cultural heritage significance

Special cultural significance to Indigenous peoples

Natural heritage significance

 These heritage places and heritage precincts make an important contribution to the City’s character and culture. Once lost, they cannot be recovered. Among these heritage places and heritage precincts are:

Buildings, monuments and other structures both singly and in groups

Topographic features, landscapes, sites, parks, gardens, significant amenity areas, forests, wetlands and other habitats

Streetscapes, landmarks and viewpoints.

4.7.2.1 – Heritage Register

     A Citywide Heritage Register will identify heritage places and heritage precincts. Additional places of heritage value may be identified at the time of assessing an impact assessable development application. In these cases, the Heritage Place Code will be considered in assessing any development proposal.

     To conserve places and precincts of significance and manage the impacts of development on them, the significance of places and precincts listed in the Heritage Register will be considered when assessing an impact assessable development application. Development that adversely affects these places or precincts is not considered appropriate.

4.7.2.2 Places of cultural heritage significance

     Places and precincts that have cultural heritage significance for any group/s of people will be conserved by:

listing the places and precincts in the Heritage Register so that their attributes are identified and known

supporting the use of these places and precincts for purposes that retain their significance

ensuring that development does not detract from their cultural heritage significance

     This conservation will be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of ‘Burra Charter’ Places of Cultural Significance 1998.

     New development will protect the cultural heritage significance of the place or precinct by keeping and preserving its significant fabric and by avoiding harmful intrusions on significant vies. The adaptation and re-use of heritage places and heritage precincts will be supported where the new use is compatible with the retention of significance.

     On land adjoining a heritage place or heritage precinct any development will be assessable if it is likely to affect significant aspects of the fabric or visual setting of the heritage place or heritage precinct. Considerations include:

the historical pattern of development, eg subdivision

gardens and grounds

relationships to other buildings

views to and from the heritage place or heritage precinct

CITY PLAN 2014 PLANNING SCHEME PROVISION

REFERENCE TO ‘CULTURAL HERITAGE’ WITHIN PLANNING SCHEME

Strategic Framework

(Part 3)

3.4.1 Strategic Outcome (1)(c) – Brisbane has locations within the city which have cultural heritage significance to a broad range of groups and individuals. Character housing provides a link with Brisbane’s history and helps to reinforce a strong sense of place and community identity. Brisbane’s character elements and built cultural heritage are appreciated, protected and managed. Locations of cultural significance for Aboriginal people are recognised and protected.

Strategic Outcome (SO) 17 – Brisbane’s important buildings and places that are important to the city’s history are protected.

L19.1 – Heritage Places and precincts of important local, city-wide or State cultural heritage significance or special significance to Aboriginal people are identified and protected in accordance with the principles of The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.

Fortitude Valley Neighbourhood Plan

7.2.6.4.2 Purpose

(3)(b) – Renewal of Fortitude Valley focuses on promoting its vital role in the growth and economy of the city by providing both a supportive commercial function to the City Centre and ensuring the cultural heritage of the are, in the Special context area sub-precinct (Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan/NPP002a) in particular is maintained

(3)(c) – Growth demonstrates balanced social, economic and environmental outcomes and complements Fortitude Valley’s social, cultural and heritage diversity.

(3)(j) – Development is of a height, scale and form which is consistent with the amenity and character, community expectations and infrastructure assumptions intended for the relevant precinct, sub-precinct or site and is only developed at a greater height, scale and form where there is both a community need and an economic need for the development.

(3)(k) – Development protects and enhances Fortitude Valley’s special heritage and character through the retention, refurbishment and re-use of heritage places and character buildings. New development will favour the retention of existing buildings, sensitively integrate infill development with heritage places, reflect and complement Fortitude Valley’s character and maintain the prominence of landmark sites and vistas.

Mixed Use (inner city) Zone Code

6.2.6.4 (2)(f) – Ensure an intensity and form of development that is tailored to an individual area and that respects existing heritage, character and grain and ensure development transitions sensitively to surrounding residential areas.

Centre or mixed use code

9.3.3.2 Purpose –

  1. (g)
    Development intensity, bulk, scale and form is:
  1. consistent with the intended function , spatial arrangement and type of centre or corridor, as expressed in the zone, zone precinct and neighbourhood plan outcomes;
  2. articulated and detailed to achieve a positive streetscape outcome.
  1. (i)
    Development for a building exhibits subtropical design elements and a visually appealing street edge that continues local character form such as traditional strip shopfronts, where appropriate, to contribute to Brisbane’s character and identity

PO31 – Development ensures that building bulk and scale:

  1. (a)
    is consistent with the form and character intent for the local area and street;
  1. (b)
    is reduced by design elements to provide:
  1. visual interest and contribution to the character of the centre or mixed use area;
  2. reflection of valued local form elements such as podium or parapet heights in traditional strip shopping centres
  3. adequate amenity for building occupants and residents in terms of access to natural light and ventilation
  4. a comfortable and attractive pedestrian environment
  5. a building base which exhibits a human-scale and fine-grain building rhythm;
  6. variations in horizontal and vertical profile.

PO33 – Development for a building exhibits subtropical design elements to support a building’s occupant, resident and user comfort and outdoor activities and living.

Heritage Overlay Code

8.2.12.2 Purpose – (2) The purpose of the code will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:

  1. (a)
    Development on or adjoining a heritage place does not detract from the cultural heritage significance of that heritage place, including any Aboriginal cultural values.
  1. (b)
    Re-use of a heritage place is compatible with its cultural heritage significance, including any Aboriginal cultural and retains its heritage significance.

PO1 – Development provides for the future protection of the heritage   place and does not damage or diminish its cultural heritage significance.

PO2 – Development is based on and takes account of all aspects of the cultural significance of the heritage place.

PO3 – Development protects the fabric and setting of the heritage place while providing for its use, interpretation and management.

PO4 – Development is based on the issues relevant to the conservation of the heritage place

Footnotes

[1]  Pursuant to section 461(1)(a) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld).

[2]  Exhibit 3, Town Planning Joint Expert Report, paragraph 29.

[3]  Ibid, paragraph 31.

[4]  Exhibit 1, paragraph 9.

[5]  Exhibit 2, page 5.

[6]  Ibid.

[7]  Exhibit 10, Plan D.08.

[8]  Ibid.

[9]  The ‘assessment manager’, pursuant to section 246 of SPA.

[10]  Appeal Book, Exhibit 2, page 245.

[11]  See Appendix A.

[12]  Pursuant to section s 246(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld).

[13]Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) section 285.

[14]  Exhibit 2, Appeal Book, page 199.

[15]  Exhibit 2, Appeal Book, page 193.

[16]  Exhibit 5, State Development Assessment Provisions Folio, page 2.

[17]  Exhibit 2, Appeal Book, page 204.

[18]  Pursuant to section 251 of SPA, a ‘referral agency’ includes a ‘concurrence agency’.

[19]  Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), section 314(3).

[20]  [2014] QPEC 35 at [83].

[21]  Exhibit 9, Statement of Evidence, Shannon McGuire, paragraph 4.2.9.

[22]  T2-73.15-47.

[23]  Notice of Appeal filed 24 April 2015.

[24]  IDAS Form 1, Exhibit 2, page 61.

[25]  Submissions of the Respondent, paragraph 27.

[26]  Exhibit 1, Appellant’s Outline of Argument, paragraph 67.

[27]  Submissions of the Respondent, paragraph 19.

[28]  Submissions of the Respondent, paragraph 20; Applicant’s Outline of Argument, paragraphs 5-6.

[29]  Exhibit 3, Tab 2, Town Planning Joint Expert Report, paragraph 62.

[30]  Exhibit 3, Tab 2, Town Planning Joint Expert Report, paragraph 20.

[31]  Exhibit 3, Tab 1, Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects, paragraph 4.

[32]  Ibid.

[33]  Ibid.

[34]  Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) section 35.

[35]  Exhibit 5, Extracts to City Plan, City Plan 2000 Heritage Register Planning Scheme Policy paragraph 2; City Plan 2014 SC6.13 Heritage planning scheme policy paragraph 2.

[36]  Submissions of the Respondent, paragraph 64.

[37]  [2012] QPEC 81.

[38]  T1-18.17-26.

[39]  T1-48.25-30.

[40]  Exhibit 3, Joint Report of Expert Heritage Expert Architects, paragraph 38.

[41]  Exhibit 1, Appellants Outline of Argument, paragraph 43.

[42]  Ibid, paragraph 44.

[43]  Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects, paragraph 43-58.

[44]  Exhibit 10.

[45]  Exhibit 4.

[46]  Ibid, paragraph 30.

[47]  Exhibit 3, Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects, paragraph 44.

[48]Exhibit 7, Statement of Evidence – Ms Ruth Woods dated 2 June 2016, paragraph 5.0.2.

[50]  Exhibit 3, Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects, paragraph 31.

[51]  T1-47.33-35.

[52]  Exhibit 12.

[53]  Exhibit 3, Town Planning Joint Expert Report, paragraph 40.

[54]  Exhibit 3, Joint Report of Heritage Expert Architects, paragraph 37.

[55]  Ibid.

[56]  Exhibit 5, City Plan 2000 Tab, page 98.

[57]  Exhibit 3, Joint Report of Expert Heritage Architects, paragraph 15.

[58]  Exhibit 5, Burra Charter Tab, page 3.

[59]  Exhibit 2, Heritage Impact Report, page 136.

[60]  Ibid, page 151.

[61]  T1.41.25-45

[62]  Exhibit 3, Joint Report of Heritage Expert Architects, paragraph 84.

[63]  Exhibit 5, Burra Charter Folio, page 4.

[64]  Ibid, page 5.

[65]  Applicant’s Supplementary Outline of Argument, paragraph 42.

[66]  T2-35.42-49.

[67]  Exhibit 5, Burra Charter 2013 Tab, page 7.

[68]  Exhibit 5, City Plan 2000, page 41.

[69]  Exhibit 5, City Plan 2000, page 48.

[70]  T1.38.30-T1.39.5; T1-56.10-13.

[71]  T1-58.22-25

[72]  T2-32.8-12.

[73]  Exhibit 2, Heritage Impact Report, page 149.

[74]Fitzgibbons Hotel Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [1997] QPELR 208 at 212.

[75]  Exhibit 1, Appellant’s Outline of Argument, paragraph 77.

[76]  Exhibit 4, Statement of James Terrence Russell, paragraph 36-37.

[77]  [2016] QPEC 21 at [34] – [36].

[78]Wurtulla Investments Pty Ltd & Hiroc Pty Ltd v Caloundra City Council [2004] QPEC 73.

[79]  28 October 1943, Hansard, United Kingdom Parliament, Commons, House of Commons Rebuilding, Speaking: The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill), HC Deb 28, volume 393, cc403-73.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    James Russell Architects v Brisbane City Council & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    James Russell Architects v Brisbane City Council

  • MNC:

    [2016] QPEC 43

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Searles DCJ

  • Date:

    01 Sep 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
Cowan v Brisbane City Council [2012] QPEC 81
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QPEC 81
Cite 2 - [2012] QPEC 81
Fitzgibbons Pty Ltd v Logan City Council (1997) QPELR 208
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1997) QPELR 208
Cite 2 - (1997) QPELR 208
Hymix Australia Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2014] QPEC 35
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QPEC 35
Cite 2 - [2014] QPEC 35
Synergy Property Partners No 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 21
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QPEC 21
Cite 2 - [2016] QPEC 21
Wurtulla Investments Pty Ltd v Caloundra City Council [2004] QPEC 73
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QPEC 73
Cite 2 - [2004] QPEC 73

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Body Corporate for Mayfair Residences Community Titles Scheme 31233 v Brisbane City Council [2017] QPEC 221 citation
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.