Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2017
  4. Wust v Moreton Bay Regional Council - [2017] QPEC 27

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

Wust v Moreton Bay Regional Council[2017] QPEC 27

Wust v Moreton Bay Regional Council[2017] QPEC 27

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wust v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QPEC 27

PARTIES:

BRIAN GERARD WUST

(Appellant)

v

MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3883/16

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

25 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Bundaberg

HEARING DATE:

19 and 20 April 2017, at Brisbane

JUDGE:

Bowskill QC DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is allowed.

The disputed conditions 2(a)(i) to (v) and 37 are not required to be included in the development permit.

The parties are to prepare and provide to the court appropriate orders, reflecting the agreement of the parties in exhibit 9, and the decision of the court in relation to the disputed conditions.

I will hear the parties in relation to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – CONDITIONS APPEAL – proposed multiple dwelling development at Morayfield – disputed conditions concerning orientation of two of the units comprising the development, and whether provision of pedestrian connection to second street frontage required – whether conditions required in order to prevent conflict with the relevant planning schemes – whether the conditions are relevant and reasonably required

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), ss 314, 324, 326, 345, 461, 493, 495

SDW Projects Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2007] QPELR 24

Walker v Western Downs Regional Council [2015] QPELR 795

Waverley Road Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (2011) 187 LGERA 352

Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2004] QPELR 337

Zappala Family Management Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (2014) 201 LGERA 82

COUNSEL:

D Favell for the Appellant

J Dillon for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Colwell Wright Solicitors for the Appellant

Moreton Bay Regional Council Legal Services division for the Respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr Brian Wust is the owner of land at 165 and 169 Caboolture River Road in Morayfield (Lots 16 and 17 on RP 136494).  In January 2016 Mr Wust lodged with the Council an application for approval for a material change of use of the land, for the purposes of a multiple dwelling residential development.  The Council did not determine the application within the requisite time period, and Mr Wust, by this proceeding, has appealed against the Council’s deemed refusal of that application.  The Council agrees that the appeal should be allowed, and a development permit granted, however there was dispute between the parties in relation to some of the conditions which the Council says should apply to the development.
  2. [2]
    There has been considerable agreement reached between the parties, reflected in the “schedule of agreed amendments to conditions” (exhibit 9), leaving only two issues to be determined by the court, concerning:
    1. (a)
      the orientation of the units (or houses) at the front of the complex; and
    2. (b)
      whether pedestrian connections ought to be provided at the back of the complex.

The proposed development, the land and the surrounding area

  1. [3]
    The land has frontage to both Caboolture River Road and a smaller road which runs parallel to that road, Cox Drive.  As proposed, both vehicle and pedestrian access to the development will be from Cox Drive. 
  2. [4]
    Cox Drive joins to Beacon Street at its western end, which then intersects with Caboolture River Road.  To the east, Cox Drive would meet up with Grant Road, although at present only part of Cox Drive is bitumen sealed.  Vehicle access to Grant Road is prevented by bollards and a gate, but pedestrian access is available.  The part of Cox Drive in front of the land is presently unformed, but will be constructed to match the existing formed part of Cox Drive as part of the development.[1]
  3. [5]
    The combined area of the two lots comprising the land is 8,094m2.  The proposed development, which will occur in two stages, comprises 20 dwelling units (with 10 units in each stage).  All units are single storey, and take the form of detached houses.[2]  Each house has 4 bedrooms and a double lock up garage.  The 10 houses in each stage are arranged around a central driveway that runs from Cox Drive, through the middle of the complex, so that there are four houses on each side, and a further two houses at the end of the driveway.  The houses are inward facing to this driveway (so that they have their garage doors and front doors facing the driveway).[3] 
  4. [6]
    Houses 1 and 10 are at the front of each stage of the development, closest to Cox Drive.[4]  Like the other houses, they each face the driveway, in the sense that the garage doors, front door, lounge and one bedroom are on the side of the house facing the driveway.  On the side of each of these houses which faces the street there is the garage (with a window), laundry door, kitchen window and a patio.[5]
  5. [7]
    Landscaping is proposed along both road frontages.  On Cox Drive, there is a 1.2m fence proposed on either side of the driveway.  There is no gate across the driveway, so the entry to the complex is entirely open.  Behind the fence there will be a 2m wide strip of landscaping, as well as a visitor carpark on each side of the driveway, in front of houses 1 and 10.  There are a further 4 visitor carparks provided at the southern end of the complex, near houses 5 and 6 at the end of the driveway.  On Caboolture River Road, there is a narrower 500mm strip of landscaping proposed, with a solid acoustic fence.   As proposed, no pedestrian access is intended from the complex, through to Caboolture River Road. 
  6. [8]
    The court has the benefit of being able to see precisely how the development will appear because Mr Wust has already completed, in 2011, an identical development, one block away, at 177-179 and 181-183 Caboolture River Road (lots 19 and 20).[6]
  7. [9]
    To assist the court in determining the remaining issues in this appeal, the parties relied upon expert evidence from town planners, Mr Chris Schomburgk for Mr Wust and Ms Jennifer Roughan for the Council.  Their evidence is contained in the JER (exhibit 2), together with oral evidence given by each of them at the hearing.  The court also had the benefit of a view of the existing identical development, the subject land and the surrounding area, in order to assist in understanding the evidence.
  8. [10]
    In terms of the surrounding area, the town planning experts agreed that the immediate locality of the subject land is one “in transition” from original 4,000m2 lots to a more urbanised / suburban area.  As explained in the JER, the area originally consisted of one acre allotments, many of which remain, although some have been subdivided, or re-developed for more intensive urban residential purposes.  Further along Cox Drive, to the east, on both sides of the road, there are predominantly remnant one acre lots, with those on the same (southern) side also having double frontage to Caboolture River Road.  The lot diagonally opposite the land, on Cox Drive, is currently the subject of a development application for units similar to those proposed here. To the west, there is a one acre lot (lot 18), followed by the existing identical unit development (on lots 19 and 20).  Continuing west, into Beacon Street, there are a number of smaller residential lots, with single dwelling houses.   At its southern end, Beacon Street meets Caboolture River Road at a perpendicular intersection. 
  9. [11]
    Caboolture River Road is part of the “primary active transport network”, with Beacon Street being part of the “secondary active transport network”.[7]  Caboolture River Road is a busy road, with provision to cross (in the form of a traffic island) being provided at the intersection with Beacon Street.  On the other (southern) side of Caboolture River Road, there is a fairly wide grassy area, which is part of the road reserve, and then conventional urban residential development.[8]  Along the southern side of Caboolture River Road, a pedestrian/cycling pathway is provided.  On the northern side of that Road (being the side that the subject land fronts) the verge is much narrower, and there is no provision for walking/cycling.  The verge here is also narrower than the section of Caboolture River Road where the existing identical complex is located.[9]
  10. [12]
    The disputed conditions concern two issues:
    1. (a)
      whether the orientation of houses 1 and 10, in each of the stages of the development, should be changed, so that they face Cox Drive; and
    2. (b)
      whether pedestrian pathways should be built at the southern end of the development, in between houses 5 and 6 of each stage, so as to provide a direct link to Caboolture River Road.
  11. [13]
    The disputed conditions, being conditions 2(a)(i) to (v) are as follows:[10]

“2. DS30  Amended Plan Required

  1. (a)
    Submit amended plans which address the following:
  1. (i)
     Amend the design of the proposed dwellings adjacent to Cox Drive (Houses 1 and 10 in Stages 1 and 2) to ensure the façade of the houses are to be orientated so habitable rooms overlook the street and direct pedestrian access is provided to the front door.
  1. (ii)
     Private open space is to be located behind the main face of the proposed dwellings fronting Cox Drive and is to be screened with a 1.8 metre high timber paling fence.
  1. (iii)
     Relocate the visitor spaces currently located in the front setback of Houses 1 and 10 in Stages 1 and 2 to internally on site to allow for greater orientation of the dwellings to the street (note the houses can be located closer to Cox Drive to facilitate this outcome with a minimum 3 metre setback).
  1. (iv)
     Relocate the bio-retention basin internally on site to enable the houses to be relocated closer to the Cox Drive Road frontage.  Note:  On-site stormwater detention can be located within the driveway of each stage.
  1. (v)
     Provide pedestrian connections to Caboolture River Road in the form of a single 1.5m wide pedestrian pathway between Houses 5 and 6 in Stage 1 and Houses 5 and 6 in Stage 2.”
  1. [14]
    Conditions 2(a)(i) to (iv) are all related to the first issue, reorientating houses 1 and 10 so that they face Cox Drive.  Conditions (iii) and (iv) (relocating the visitor carparks, and the bio-retention basin) are consequent upon that reorientation, because what is proposed is that houses 1 and 10 would be moved closer to the street.   In relation to condition (ii), as presently proposed, houses 1 and 10 have a patio on the Cox Drive side of the house.  As explained by the Council, if the houses are reorientated, condition (ii) requires this patio (the “private open space”) to be located at the back of the house (that is, furthest from Cox Drive, adjacent to houses 2 and 9, respectively) and screened with a 1.8 metre high timber fence.   Although the wording of the conditions is ambiguous, the Council made it clear that condition (ii) is not a separate requirement; it is only a requirement if condition (i) is implemented.[11]
  2. [15]
    Condition 2(v) raises the second issue, of the provision of pedestrian access to Caboolture River Road.

The assessment regime

  1. [16]
    This appeal was commenced pursuant to s 461(1)(e) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.   The appeal is by way of hearing anew (s 495(1)), and it is for the appellant, Mr Wust, to establish that the appeal should be upheld (s 493(1)).
  2. [17]
    The court must decide the appeal based on the laws and policies applying when the development application was made, but may give weight to any new laws and policies the court considers appropriate (s 495(2)(a)).  
  3. [18]
    The relevant laws and policies applying when the development application was made included, relevantly, the Caboolture Shire Planning Scheme 2005.  There is now a new planning scheme, the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme, which commenced on 1 February 2016.
  4. [19]
    The Council submits that the court should give “significant” weight to the 2016 planning scheme, given that it came into force only days after the application was lodged; both town planners agree it is relevant;[12] and because the surrounding area is in transition, the 2016 planning scheme “provides important forward planning for the development of the area which [the Council says] is lacking in the 2005 Planning Scheme”.[13]  On behalf of Mr Wust it was accepted that the 2016 provisions ought to be considered, but the weight to be given to them was said to be a matter for the court.
  5. [20]
    As will be seen below, I have considered the relevant provisions of the 2016 planning scheme in determining this matter; although this is not a case where the provisions of the new planning scheme alter the position in any real way.
  6. [21]
    Under the 2005 planning scheme, the land falls within the residential A zone; in which use of land for multiple dwellings is impact assessable.  Under the 2016 planning scheme, the land is within the “next generation neighbourhood precinct” of the general residential zone, and the proposed development would be code assessable.
  7. [22]
    Because the application, having been made under the 2005 planning scheme, is impact assessable, the Court must assess the application in accordance with s 314 of the Planning Act and decide the application in accordance with ss 324 and 326 of the Planning Act.  In relation to s 314(2), it was uncontroversial that, for the purposes of this proceeding, the impact assessment need only be carried out by reference to the planning scheme.
  8. [23]
    The Court’s decision must not conflict with the planning scheme, unless there are “sufficient grounds” to justify the decision despite the conflict (s 326(1)(b)).   “Conflict” means to be at variance with or disagree with.[14]  “Grounds” means matters of public interest, and does not include the personal circumstances of the appellant.[15]
  9. [24]
    Under s 324, in deciding an application for development approval, the assessment manager (in this case the court) may, in approving all or part of the application, impose conditions (s 324(1)(b)).  In this regard, s 345(1) provides that:

“A condition must –

  1. (a)
     be relevant to, but not an unreasonable imposition on, the development or use of premises as a consequence of the development; or
  1. (b)
     be reasonably required in relation to the development or use of premises as a consequence of the development.”
  1. [25]
    The relevant principles which apply to the exercise of the power to impose conditions were summarised by Andrews SC DCJ in Waverley Road Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (2011) 187 LGERA 352 at [47].
  2. [26]
    In so far as it may be necessary to construe parts of the planning schemes, in order to determine the issues in this case, I apply the principles referred to in Zappala Family Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (2014) 201 LGERA 82 at [52]-[56] and Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2004] QPELR 337 at 342; and, in relation to the performance criteria, SDW Projects Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2007] QPELR 24 at [46]-[48].
  3. [27]
    The Council’s position is that the conditions are required in order to prevent conflict with the provisions of the 2005 planning scheme and the 2016 planning scheme; but in any event the conditions should be imposed “pursuant to the general exercise of the conditions power”.[16]
  4. [28]
    Mr Wust submits that there is no conflict with either planning scheme, without the disputed conditions; and that the conditions do not meet the requirements in s 345(1).  Mr Wust also points to the approval of the identical development, one block away, which does not include these conditions, as being evidence that it is unreasonable to impose them.[17]  It is accepted by Mr Wust that, as a matter of principle, each development application is to be assessed on its own merits, and that another approval, even if under the same scheme, does not act as a precedent.[18]  However, counsel for Mr Wust submits “this is a very unique situation.  It’s identical.  It’s the same land.  It’s not ‘someone else built that down the road’.  It’s almost the exact location.  And if for no other reason, it’s a good principle of administrative law that the law is applied in a consistent fashion”.[19]
  5. [29]
    There is some force in this submission; although it does not provide an answer in itself to the disputed issues.  The existence of an identical development one block away does, however, assist in visualising how the proposed development will appear, which in turn assists in considering the consistency or otherwise of the proposal with the relevant planning scheme provisions; and is an existing part of the streetscape, appropriately to be taken into account.
  6. [30]
    For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that the appeal ought to be allowed, and a development permit granted, without conditions 2(a)(i) to (v) and 37.   In reaching that view, for reasons which are articulated in more detail below, I have largely preferred the evidence of Mr Schomburgk to that of Ms Roughan.      

2005 planning scheme provisions

  1. [31]
    The relevant provisions of the 2005 planning scheme were identified by reference to the assessment criteria under the residential A zone code, as well as the medium density residential zone code.[20]

Residential A zone code

  1. [32]
    The overall outcomes for the residential A zone are set out in section 5.27(b), relevantly, as follows:

“(i) The character of the zone, which consists mainly of detached residential dwellings on a variety of lot sizes, is maintained;

  1. (ii)
     Development maximises both indoor and outdoor privacy through building design, location and orientation;
  1. (iii)
     Pedestrian and vehicle networks promote integration of residential areas and maximises connectivity for different modes of private and public transport, while maintaining the effective and efficient function of the road hierarchy;
  1. (iv)
     Development provides a range of lot sizes and a variety of dwelling house options to cater for the needs of a diverse community;

…

  1. (vi)
     Building design and lot layout are responsive to the South East Queensland climate and optimise the use of indoor and outdoor private space; ….”
  1. [33]
    The assessment criteria include specific outcomes and probable solutions.  Development that is consistent with the specific outcomes for the relevant zone complies with the code.[21]
  2. [34]
    The particular assessment criteria addressed by the town planning experts in this case were:[22]
    1. (a)
      Specific outcome SO4 (building design) – that “building scale, form and bulk is consistent to that of a Dwelling House and incorporates traditional Queensland design elements” and including, as probable solutions:
      1. (i)
        S4.6 – “buildings incorporate large decks, sun shading devices and other building features traditionally used in the design of Queensland houses”; or
      1. (ii)
        S4.7 – “the main face of the building directly addresses the street”;
      1. (iii)
        S4.8 – “buildings are orientated to be parallel to the alignment of the street or streets that they abut”;
    2. (b)
      Specific outcome SO9 (personal and property safety) – that “buildings and spaces are designed in accordance with the following core principles of Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED):  (a) Facilitation of casual surveillance; (b) Minimisation of concealed areas; (c) Illumination of public areas, in particular paths of movement; and (d) Creation of legible space and buildings”, and including, as probable solutions:
      1. (i)
        S9.1 – “buildings front onto public areas and contain windows and/or doors that facilitate casual surveillance”;
      1. (ii)
        S9.4 – “entries to buildings are:  (a) clearly identifiable from the street; (b) distinguished from the balance of the building façade; (c) well lit; (d) appropriately signposted; and (e) free from areas providing concealment”;
    3. (c)
      Specific outcome SO13 (configuration) – that “buildings and spaces are configured on site in a manner that optimises both reciprocal amenity and functionality and interaction between the public and private domains”, and including probable solutions addressing setbacks from road alignments, rear and side boundaries, as well as in relation to screening of outdoor storage and utility areas.

Medium density residential zone code

  1. [35]
    The overall outcomes of the medium density residential zone code are set out, relevantly, in section 7.56(b)(i) and (ii), as follows:

“(i)  medium density housing provides a high standard of amenity for residents and other users of the site and adjoining properties; and

  1. (ii)
     medium density housing contributes to the creation of appealing streetscapes and urban communities with a distinct character and sense of place consistent with the stated planning character of the surrounding area”.
  1. [36]
    The particular assessment criteria addressed by the town planning experts in this case were:[23]
    1. (a)
      Specific outcome SO3 (building aesthetics and design) – that “building design provides that … (b) existing streetscapes in established areas are respected; and (c) where a complete streetscape has not yet been established, a high standard of design is introduced”, and including a number of probable solutions which it is not necessary to set out here;
    2. (b)
      Specific outcome SO5 (building and site accessibility) – that “building design and site layout provide:  (a) entries that are clearly visible to visitors from the street; (b) internal driveways, entry points and a circulation system that are accessible to all residents …”, and including probable solutions:
      1. (i)
        S5.1 – “buildings adjacent to public streets address or face the street”; and
      1. (ii)
        S5.2 – “buildings are detailed or articulated to enable building entries to be identified from the street”;
    3. (c)
      Specific outcome SO8 (personal security) – that “the configuration and design of buildings and spaces maximises personal and property safety through consistency with the principles of … CPTED”, and including probable solutions:
      1. (i)
        S8.1 – “individual entry points of dwelling units and accommodation buildings can be clearly identified by visitors and emergency vehicles”; and
      1. (ii)
        S8.2 – “building design, layout, landscaping and fencing allows casual surveillance of all outdoor communal open space, direct surveillance of dwelling unit entries and the elimination or minimisation of concealment areas”;
    4. (d)
      Specific outcome SO10 (screening/fences) – that “a high standard of residential amenity and privacy is experienced by residents”, and including a probable solution:
      1. (i)
        S10.2 – “where private open space is located in front of accommodation buildings, multiple dwellings… solid fences and walls to 1.8 metres high along the site frontage are limited in length to 75% of the frontage and do not exceed 10.0 metres in length without some articulation or detailing to provide visual interest”.

2016 planning scheme

  1. [37]
    The relevant provisions of the 2016 planning scheme were identified by reference to parts of the strategic framework, the “next generation neighbourhood precinct” code and the “residential uses code”.[24]

Strategic framework

  1. [38]
    I have noted the provisions of the strategic framework referred to in the JER at [52]-[58].  Among those is section 3.14.9, in relation to “next generation neighbourhood place types”, which includes the following statement:

“The Next generation neighbourhood place type applies to targeted existing suburban areas, new greenfield and rural residential transition areas that have potential and are suitable to accommodate new residential development and related local services and have capacity for and capability of change in the life of this plan.

They will provide housing choice in the form of detached housing on a range of lot sizes and attached housing.  Attached housing will be arranged around activity centres, along public transport routes and adjacent to local recreational parkland. Lower density development will not be located within 800 metres of an activity centre, public transport route or parkland. The Next generation neighbourhood areas are intended to be developed at a density that will support public transport and active transport infrastructure - at least 35 people and/or jobs per hectare (for people this equates to a net residential density of 15 – 25 dwellings per hectare).

The existing character of a Next generation neighbourhood will change over time as these areas develop. The street network in Next generation neighbourhoods will be well connected, permeable and legible with a grid-like form.  Buildings will address the street and non-residential uses will have activate frontages.”

Next generation neighbourhood precinct

  1. [39]
    The next generation neighbourhood precinct is dealt with in section 6.2.6.3.  The purpose of this code is said to be achieved through a number of overall outcomes, including, in section 6.2.6.3.1(1)(e):

“The design, siting and construction of residential uses are to:

i. contribute to an attractive streetscape with priority given to pedestrians;

ii. encourage passive surveillance of public spaces;

iii. results in privacy and residential amenity consistent with the low to medium density residential character intended for the area;

iv. provide a diverse and attractive built form;

v. orientate to integrate with the street and surrounding neighbourhood;

vi. incorporate sub-tropical urban design principles that respond to local climatic conditions …”

  1. [40]
    The town planning experts identified performance outcomes PO4 (setbacks (residential uses)) and PO8 (movement network) as relevant.[25]   PO8 provides that “development is designed to connect to and form part of the surrounding neighbourhood by providing interconnected street, pedestrian and cyclist pathways to adjoining development, nearby centres, neighbourhood hubs, community facilities, public transport nodes and open space”.

Residential uses code

  1. [41]
    The purpose of the residential uses code is set out in section 9.3.2.2(2), and includes:

“c. Residential buildings are designed and oriented to the street to provide surveillance to the streetscape.

d. Residential buildings have a high standard of built form and landscaping, are designed to add visual interest and enhance the local streetscape.

e. Residential uses are designed to facilitate a high level of residential amenity, privacy and safety to residents, adjoining properties and the wider community.

f. Residential uses provide safe and clearly defined pedestrian movement and vehicular access to, from and within the premises.

g. Subtropical design standards are incorporated into the design, siting and orientation of development.

h. Residential uses provide attractive and useable open space areas, either private open space or communal open space and facilities that meet the needs or residents and users.

… 

m. The built form of townhouse style developments … are designed and oriented to integrate with the surrounding neighbourhood.”

  1. [42]
    The town planning experts identified performance outcomes PO11 (screening – fences), PO12 (integrated development), PO13 (building appearance), PO15 (casual surveillance) and PO16 (subtropical design) of the criteria for assessable development in table 9.3.2.3 as relevant.[26] 
  2. [43]
    PO15 provides that “buildings and structures are designed and oriented to have active frontages that provide visual interest, address road frontages and facilitate casual surveillance of all public spaces (streets, laneways, public open space, pedestrian paths and car parking areas) through:

a. incorporating habitable room windows, balconies and foyers that overlook public spaces;

b. emphasising the pedestrian entry so that it is easily identifiable and safely accessible from the primary frontage;

c. if located on a street corner, the building addresses and overlooks both frontages.”

Orientation of houses 1 and 10

  1. [44]
    As Mr Schomburgk noted in the JER at [63], the Council’s reasons for requiring houses 1 and 10 to be reorientated are articulated in condition 2(a)(i) as being “so habitable rooms overlook the street” and “direct pedestrian access is provided to the front door”.
  2. [45]
    Mr Schomburgk expressed the opinion that there is no justification for this condition, because in terms of the development as proposed “both units have habitable rooms overlooking the street, and both units have private open spaces adjacent to the street, with patio and doors fronting the street”.[27]  Notably, it is the kitchen window which overlooks the street, which as Mr Schomburgk said, “offers the better opportunity for casual surveillance of what’s going on outside”, because that is the room that is likely to be occupied most, albeit intermittently, during the day and the evening.[28]

2005 planning scheme

  1. [46]
    In relation to the 2005 planning scheme, Mr Schomburgk expressed the opinion that specific outcome SO4 (of the residential A zone code) is met, because each of the units in the complex is of a scale, form and bulk consistent with a dwelling house.  Mr Schomburgk noted that “the extent to which the units incorporate traditional Queensland design elements does not appear to be a matter raised by the Council in its conditions”.[29]   He accepted that the probable solutions S4.7 and S4.8 are not met.[30]  But that does not mean the specific outcome is not complied with.[31]
  2. [47]
    Ms Roughan was of the view that SO4 is not met because the development “fails to incorporate any traditional Queensland design elements”.[32]
  3. [48]
    At the hearing, it emerged that Ms Roughan was of the opinion that “traditional Queensland design elements” in SO4 has the same meaning as “traditional building character” elements, a concept referred to in overlays designed to protect traditional building character (where it appears in houses constructed prior to 1947) in particular areas.  Ms Roughan said there is a “degree of ambiguity” and some “imperfection” in the manner in which the present provisions are drafted, but she considers that it is implied, by the phrase “traditional Queensland design elements” that that is what the provision is looking for.[33]  I do not accept that as an appropriate construction of the term.  If that is what was intended, it would be a straightforward matter for the drafters of the scheme to use the phrase “traditional building character” or “traditional building character elements”.   But in any event, it is difficult to see why it would be considered necessary or appropriate to require such elements, in areas or parts of Brisbane not protected by a traditional building character overlay, and in which new housing, including multiple dwelling forms of housing, is prevalent.
  4. [49]
    In my view the phrase “traditional Queensland design elements” ought to be construed broadly.  What is intended to be captured by the phrase is, in my view, informed by overall outcome (vi) – that building design be responsive to the South East Queensland climate – which may include embracing elements of subtropical design (including spacing and vegetation, to maximise breeze; providing outdoor living areas; incorporating eaves, awnings, pergolas and verandahs, to provide sun protection and shade).[34] 
  5. [50]
    Although the Council contended, on the basis of Ms Roughan’s evidence, that “one of the key traditional design elements of houses in Queensland is [that] they face the street”, as Mr Schomburgk said, and I accept, “houses normally do, that’s correct.  Units don’t always do that”[35] and, further:

“Units may but units very, very often do not face the street.  This layout that’s proposed and the one that we see at the existing development is very, very common throughout all parts of South East Queensland and not just South East Queensland, throughout Queensland.  Unit developments with a somewhat described disparagingly as a frog mouth form of development, it opens a central driveway with units around both sides of the central driveway, that’s very, very common.”

  1. [51]
    It is appropriate, and important, to keep in mind that the development is a multiple dwelling development, not a single detached dwelling.  Although the houses are detached from one another, there are still 10 units/houses arranged in close quarters to one another, within each stage of the complex.  The arrangement of the 10 houses around the central driveway means that each of them has convenient access from the driveway to their garage; there is convenient access to their entries; and a symmetry to the layout of each stage of the complex.  There is also, within the reality of living in close quarters, a balance between the provision of some private open space and respect for the privacy of each house, with opportunities for casual surveillance, both onto the open driveway, and from houses 1 and 10 onto Cox Drive.   Houses 1 and 10 at the front of the complex do not present a bare side wall to the street – rather, they present with a side wall which incorporates windows, including the kitchen window, and then a patio; as well as having a reasonable buffer from the boundary fence and the street, and landscaping.  The front of each of these houses, and their entries, is visible from the street. Assisted as I was by a view of the existing (identical) complex, I accept Mr Schomburgk’s evidence, to the effect that the combination of the appearance of the buildings, in their context, together with the fencing and landscaping, presents a not unattractive streetscape.[36]
  2. [52]
    The houses within the proposed development do incorporate some traditional Queensland design elements[37] and, in any event, it was the orientation of houses 1 and 10 that the Council particularly focussed on, in contending for conflict with SO4, not the absence otherwise of such elements (as fairly noted by Mr Schomburgk in the JER at [65]).  In my view, in the present context, the orientation of houses 1 and 10 does not give rise to conflict with SO4.
  3. [53]
    Altering the orientation of houses 1 and 10 will involve consequential changes, including moving those houses closer to the road (Cox Drive); moving the visitor carpark that is currently at the front of the complex, to a position in between houses 1 and 2, and houses 10 and 9, respectively; moving the underground storage tanks (presently proposed to be under the visitor carparks, at the front of the complex); and moving the patios of houses 1 and 10 so that they are at the rear of each house, and screened by a 1.8m fence.  Although no one of these consequential changes was, on the evidence, impossible or difficult to carry out, the evidence which I accept was in terms that these changes would not have any positive impact on the amenity of residents and, indeed, in relation to the visitor carparking, would have a negative impact, in terms of invading the existing open space between the houses, as well as increased disturbance from noise and headlights.[38]
  4. [54]
    Ms Roughan also said there is conflict with SO13 of the residential A zone code.   Again, I prefer Mr Schomburgk’s opinion that, on the current design, “reciprocal amenity and functionality and interaction between the public and private domains” are optimised.  As Mr Schomburgk said:

“This specific outcome is talking about the balance that we’ve discussed before, the balance between casual surveillance on the one hand and privacy on the other hand.  In my opinion, the subject layout does optimise those factors.”[39]

  1. [55]
    In terms of overall outcomes for the residential A zone code, although Ms Roughan expressed the view that the current proposal is in conflict with (ii) and (vi) of section 5.27(b), I am unable to see that that is the case.  I prefer Mr Schomburgk’s evidence that although there may be different ways to design these units, the current design reflects an appropriate balance between privacy and casual surveillance; and there are inevitably flow-on implications for the balance of the development if the layout and orientation of units 1 and 10 are required to be redesigned.[40]
  2. [56]
    In relation to SO3 of the medium density residential zone code – requiring a “high standard of design” – Mr Schomburgk pragmatically observed that it is difficult to see how reorienting houses 1 and 10 would make the standard of design so much better; it would still be the same material, having the same built form, same height, and same shape.  In Mr Schomburgk’s opinion, “just by turning them around … doesn’t, of itself, mean that we suddenly have a high standard of design that we don’t currently have”.[41]   Ms Roughan was of the view the proposal does not represent a high standard of design; but apart from the orientation of houses 1 and 10 it was not clear why that was the case.[42]
  3. [57]
    Turning to SO5 of the medium density residential zone code – requiring that building design and site layout provide, inter alia, entries that are clearly visible to visitors from the street and driveways and entry points that are accessible to all residents.  Mr Schomburgk was of the opinion SO5 is met, because “there seems little doubt that entries are clearly visible from the street and the driveway is accessible to all residents”.[43]  Ms Roughan disagreed on the basis that the entries are recessed behind the prominent double garage, and what would be immediately discernible from the street is the side wall of the houses.[44]
  4. [58]
    In relation to visibility of the entries to, in particular, houses 1 and 10, the site layout, including a wide and open driveway in the middle of each stage of the complex, around which the 10 houses are located, makes the entries to the houses at the front of the complex readily visible to a visitor from the street.   I accept Mr Schomburgk’s evidence in this regard.[45]  It is unduly pedantic, and in my view ignores the practical reality of the proposed layout, to suggest that the entries to these houses are not clearly visible.  As the photographs of the identical complex one block away demonstrate, the proposed complex presents in a very open way to the street.
  5. [59]
    In relation to SO9 (of the residential A zone code) and SO8 (of the medium density residential zone code), both of which deal with design consistent with the CPTED principles, and involving opportunity for casual surveillance – Mr Schomburgk was of the view these are satisfied;[46]  Ms Roughan disagreed.[47]  A central theme of the CPTED principles is the balance between competing considerations of privacy and security:  the individual’s desire for privacy and the community’s expectation of a contribution to passive or casual surveillance.  The layout of the complex, with its open driveway, visible to the occupants of all houses, together with the opportunities for casual surveillance of Cox Drive itself from the kitchens of houses 1 and 10, and their patios, reflects an appropriate and reasonable balance.  As Mr Schomburgk noted a number of times in his evidence, perhaps the complex could be designed in a different way, but as presently proposed, it does not conflict with this aspect of the planning scheme.
  6. [60]
    In relation to overall outcome 7.56(b)(ii), for the medium density residential zone code, Mr Schomburgk’s opinion was that the current proposed orientation of houses 1 and 10 does contribute to the creation of an appealing streetscape:

“because the development as a whole does, in my opinion, contribute to an appealing streetscape.  And we see that from the existing units; that is an appealing streetscape.  It is not the prettiest thing that you might see in New Farm or whatever.  But as far as that development goes, in that context, it is an attractive streetscape.  This proposal merely seeks to replicate that.”[48]

  1. [61]
    In terms of contributing to a sense of place, Mr Schomburgk said he “strongly disagreed” that there was conflict, saying:

“The fact that we’ve got the same thing just 40 metres down the road means that replicating it on the subject site does create a sense of place.  It’s totally, totally consistent with the development that is occurring in this part of Cox Drive, for example; totally consistent.  It’s identical.  It must be consistent.”[49]

  1. [62]
    Overall, I prefer Mr Schomburgk’s evidence that the existing proposal does not conflict with the 2005 planning scheme.  Ms Roughan’s opinion was that the existing identical development, one block away on Cox Drive, should not have been approved under the 2005 scheme,[50] a view which is inconsistent with the fact of its approval, and the Council’s position otherwise in relation to the current proposed development (save for the two disputed conditions).  I infer that this broader opinion permeated the views Ms Roughan expressed in relation to the disputed conditions, resulting in what I respectfully regard as an overly pedantic and inflexible approach.  I also accept the submission on behalf of Mr Wust that Ms Roughan’s approach focussed heavily on the probable solutions, which has also affected her opinions about whether the relevant specific outcomes are met.[51]

2016 planning scheme

  1. [63]
    The position does not change in any meaningful way when consideration is given to the 2016 planning scheme provisions.
  2. [64]
    The strategic framework does include a statement that “[b]uildings will address the street”.  But in my view it would be an incorrect approach to interpret that in an inflexible, imperative manner, to conclude that the current proposal conflicts with the 2016 planning scheme, because houses 1 and 10 do not address the street, in the sense of having their front doors, and more than the kitchen and patio, facing the street.  I reiterate the principles summarised by Britton SC DCJ in Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2004] QPELR 337 at 342 in this regard, including the observations that a strategic plan should be read broadly and not pedantically, and that a strategic plan sets out broad objectives, not every one of which needs to be met before a proposal may be approved.
  3. [65]
    I do not propose to address each of the provisions referred to in the JER – but rather to record my conclusion that, having regard to the evidence before the court, and assisted as I have been by the view in understanding that evidence, I accept the opinion expressed by Mr Schomburgk in the JER as follows:

“70. In my opinion, the design of Units 1 and 10 as sought by the Appellant is adequately oriented to the street, while not facing it, such that they provide surveillance of the streetscape with private outdoor spaces, patios and habitable rooms facing and overlooking Cox Dr.  No Acceptable Outcome is provided in the scheme for PO15, but the proposed design incorporates habitable rooms and foyers (patios) that overlook the street, and the pedestrian entry off the internal driveway is easily identifiable and safely accessible, again as evidenced by the existing units to the west, thus satisfying this Performance Outcome.

  1. In summary with regard to the Council’s desire to re-orient Units 1 and 10 of each stage, I see no appreciable benefit in doing so, and there is no warrant in either planning scheme to do so.  Indeed, there are potential dis-benefits in doing so, as the required stormwater detention would need to be relocated …  Equally, I see nothing about the form and design of the existing units to the west (which the proposed units are copied) to suggest any conflict with either planning scheme.
  2. While the Council may have a different design outcome in mind, or a preference for something different, that is not the application we are asked to assess.  The proposal as sought by the Appellant provides appropriate street address, appropriate surveillance of the street, and appropriate pedestrian and vehicular entry, easily identifiable for passers-by.  It does not, in my opinion, conflict with any of the provisions of either planning scheme in this regard.”
  1. [66]
    I therefore find that the proposed development, without the disputed conditions concerning and consequent upon reorientation of houses 1 and 10, is not in conflict with either the 2005 planning scheme, or the 2016 planning scheme.
  2. [67]
    Further, I find that the proposed conditions 2(a)(i) to (iv) are not reasonably required in relation to the development; nor are they relevant in the sense explained in Waverley Road Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council at [47].

Pedestrian connection to Caboolture River Road

  1. [68]
    I have reached the same conclusion in relation to the second issue, regarding pedestrian access to Caboolture River Road.
  2. [69]
    The Council’s condition 2(a)(v) requires the provision of pedestrian connections to Caboolture River Road, in the form of a single 1.5m wide pedestrian pathway between houses 5 and 6 in each stage.  It can be seen from the setout plan[52] that the space between houses 5 and 6 is 3m.  As proposed, this space is divided equally between the houses, with a fence between them, with the result that each house has a strip of private open space beside the house, about 1.5m wide.   The construction of the Council’s proposed 1.5m wide pathway would see this reduced to about .75m adjacent to each house.
  3. [70]
    In the JER at [96] Mr Schomburgk said:

“... there are good reasons not to provide this walkway, and no apparent benefit in providing it.  The reasons against the provision are:

i) The walkway between the units will necessarily reduce the amount of open space for each of those adjoining units;

ii) The walkway will allow the general public to enter both stages of the complex, even if they are not residents or bona-fide visitors, creating safety and security issues for the whole complex;

iii) There is no sensible, practical means of locking a gate to the walkway, whereby residents and bona fide visitors could have access to that gate;

iv) The amenity of the adjoining units would be severely reduced if residents and visitors were able to use this walkway, and even much more so if uncontrolled public access was enabled;

v) The proposal includes an acoustic fence along the Caboolture River Rd boundary.  Providing pedestrian access through this fence would involve potential diminution of the acoustic benefits, and thus negative amenity impacts for the closest units, for no practical benefit (as above);

vi) Most importantly, there is no warrant for such a pedestrian access to Caboolture River Rd.  Access to the nearest bus stop (in Beacon St near the corner), for example, is shorter by at least 60m via Cox Dr than via this suggested route;

vii) Caboolture River Rd is a major road for this locality and pedestrian access to and along it is unnecessary and undesirable.  Pedestrian access is more appropriate along lower order, suburban roads such as Cox Dr, and to do so will help engender a sense of community with other redevelopments (existing and future) that also have frontage to Cox Dr.”

  1. [71]
    In expressing the contrary view, that there are good reasons why the pedestrian pathways are required under the planning scheme, and that it will be of significant benefit to the residents of the complex,[53] Ms Roughan emphasised the importance of “permeable, walkable neighbourhoods” under the planning schemes.  In this regard, she referred to the overall outcome in s 5.27(b)(iii) of the residential A zone code under the 2005 planning scheme[54] and PO8 of the next generation neighbourhood precinct code under the 2016 planning scheme.[55]
  2. [72]
    Ms Roughan also produced a document recording her measurement of certain distances from the site of the proposed development, with the Caboolture River Road frontage as the starting point.[56]  Those distances were not in dispute, but the relevance of or the support that might be provided by that analysis to or for the Council’s requirement of pedestrian access was disputed.
  3. [73]
    Whilst the meaning and intent of both planning scheme provisions relied on by Ms Roughan is somewhat difficult to discern from the language used, I accept as an important and relevant town planning principle the desirability of encouraging development of (and within) neighbourhoods which are accessible and walkable, providing opportunities for active transport, in the form of walking and cycling.[57]
  4. [74]
    But in this case, there is direct pedestrian and vehicle access from the complex to Cox Drive.   It is not a difficult or long walk along Cox Drive, to Beacon Street, which then intersects with Caboolture River Road.[58]  Indeed, the logical place to cross Caboolture River Road is at that intersection.[59]  So even if a pedestrian could exit the complex directly onto Caboolture River Road, in order to cross the road, and then utilise the existing bike and walking pathways on the other side of Caboolture River Road, a person would have to walk to the west along Caboolture River Road, then cross the road, before proceeding east on the current pathways.    The distances measured by Ms Roughan to nearby shopping centres and the state school (1.5km to the east), a small supermarket (1.5km to the west) and a daycare centre (1km to the south west) are quite considerable; suggesting a person who otherwise would be prepared to walk to those places would not be deterred from doing so by the short trip down Cox Drive to Beacon Street.[60]  Nevertheless, it cannot be completely discounted that some residents of the complex might find it beneficial to be able to gain access directly to Caboolture River Road.
  5. [75]
    On the other hand, as against that fairly limited potential benefit, I find that there are considerable disadvantages, or detriments to the amenity of residents of the complex, in particular the occupants of houses 5 and 6.  As I have noted, there is at present only 3m between these houses.  The construction of the Council’s proposed 1.5m wide pathway would leave only .75m on either side, adjacent to these houses; and would create consequential problems, in terms of privacy and security (and possibly other aspects of amenity, such as lighting and noise), that may need to be addressed.[61]
  6. [76]
    In terms of the distance between houses 5 and 6, Ms Roughan suggested that if that was a concern, it would be possible to reduce the size of the houses, to increase the distance, “or to lose one house”.[62]   However, counsel for the Council said that was not the Council’s case – its case is that the pedestrian pathway can be accommodated without any change to the current design.[63]
  7. [77]
    Ms Roughan suggested the issue of general public access to such a pathway would be solved by providing for a lockable gate, accessible only by residents with a key or some kind of swipe card.[64]  It is reasonable to conclude that, if this condition were required, a lockable gate would need to be installed, because otherwise the pathway would become a public thoroughfare, from the busy Caboolture River Road, through the complex to Cox Drive.  Putting issues of permeability and connectivity to one side that would not be a desirable outcome for the residents of the complex.  But as was submitted for Mr Wust, the installation of a gate, and a lock, also brings its own set of problems.[65]
  8. [78]
    As Mr Schomburgk reiterated a number of times in his oral evidence there is no net benefit in providing the pedestrian pathway, but there are significant detriments to the occupants of the proposed development.[66]
  9. [79]
    In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the absence of a condition in terms of paragraph 2(a)(v) results in the proposed development being in conflict with either the 2005 planning scheme or the 2016 planning scheme. Further, I consider that such a condition is not reasonably required in relation to the development, nor is it relevant, in the sense explained in Waverley Road Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council at [47].
  10. [80]
    The appeal will be allowed.   The remaining dispute as to conditions is determined by a finding that conditions 2(a)(i) to (v) and 37 are not required as part of the approval.   I will allow the parties time to prepare the relevant orders to give effect to the outcome of this proceeding, taking into account the agreement otherwise reached between the parties (reflected in exhibit 9) and also to make any submissions in relation to costs.

Footnotes

[1]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning (exhibit 2) (JER) at [11].

[2]  For ease of reference I will refer to the units as houses in these reasons, as that is how they are referred to in the plans, but note that they are variously referred to as units or houses in the material before the court.

[3]  See the set out plan, at p 63 and the site plan, at p 64 of exhibit 1.

[4]  See the site plan, at pp 65-66 of exhibit 1; also exhibit 3.

[5]  See the proposed layout in exhibit 3; floor plan of house 1 (exhibit 6); floor plan of houses 1 and 10 (part of exhibit 5 – the development approval for the existing, identical development); and photographs 8, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 18 of exhibit 4.

[6]  JER at [17] and [23].  See also exhibit 5; photographs at attachment B to the JER, at pp 59-61; and the photographs comprising exhibit 4.

[7]  Exhibit 8.

[8]  JER at [15]-[21].  See also photograph 11 of exhibit 4; and Mr Schomburgk at T 1-6 and 1-9.

[9]  See Mr Schomburgk at T 1-7 and 1-8 to 1-9; and photographs 1-5 of exhibit 4.

[10]  Condition 37 (dealing with stormwater management) is also disputed, but only in so far as it flows from the challenged parts in condition 2.  It was agreed that if the challenge to conditions 2(a)(i) to (v) is successful, the dispute about condition 37 would fall away, and so it is unnecessary to set out here.

[11]  Transcript at 2-6.45 to 2-7 and 2-21.

[12]  JER at [33]-[34] and [118].

[13]  Council’s written submissions at [36].

[14]Woolworths Ltd v Maryborough City Council (No. 2) [2006] 1 Qd R 273 at [23].

[15]  Schedule 3 of the Planning Act, definition of “grounds”.

[16]  Council’s written submissions at [4] and [5].

[17]  Mr Wust’s submissions at [3(c)].

[18]Walker v Western Downs Regional Council [2015] QPELR 795 at [42].

[19]  Transcript at 2-19.1-.9.

[20]  See the JER at [35]-[45].

[21]  Section 5.3; see also section 1.15 (a probable solution for a specific outcome provides a guide for achieving that outcome).

[22]  JER at [38].

[23]  JER at [45].

[24]  See the JER at [46]-[58].

[25]  JER at [49].

[26]  JER at [51].

[27]  JER at [64].  See also Mr Schomburgk at T 1-10 and photographs 17 and 18 of exhibit 4.

[28]  T 1-13 to 1-14.

[29]  JER at [65]; also at T 1-20 to 1-22

[30]  T 1-20.

[31]SDW Projects Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2007] QPELR 24 at [48].

[32]  JER at [76].

[33]  T 1-67.

[34]  See, for example, PO16 of the residential uses code under the 2016 planning scheme, which refers to the “Subtropical Design in South East Queensland” handbook.  See also Mr Schomburgk at T 1-21 to 1-22.

[35]  T 1-20.36 and 1-21

[36]  See Mr Schomburgk at T 1-10, and photographs 10, 15 and 19 of exhibit 4.  Also at T 1-27.

[37]  See Mr Schomburgk at T 1-22.

[38]  Mr Schomburgk at JER [106] and T 1-13.

[39]  T 1-27.

[40]  Mr Schomburgk at T 1-24 to 1-27.

[41]  T 1-30 and 1-31.30.

[42]  JER at [78]; T 1-57.

[43]  JER at [66]; see also at T 1-31.

[44]  JER at [77].

[45]  See T 1-9 and photographs 8 and 10 of exhibit 4; also T 1-23 and 1-24.

[46]  T 1-28.34; also at 1-43.

[47]  JER at [78].

[48]  T 1-29.25-.31.

[49]  T 1-30.8-.12.

[50]  Ms Roughan at T 1-55 to 1-56.

[51]  Mr Wust’s written submissions at [24].

[52]  Exhibit 1, p 63.

[53]  JER at [99].

[54]  Referred to in paragraph [32] above.  See the JER at [37] and [101].

[55]  Referred to in paragraph [40]  above.  See the JER at [99].

[56]  Exhibit 7.

[57]  Ms Roughan at T 1-60; see also the JER at [99]-[102].

[58]  Ms Roughan did not measure the distance; but indicated it would be a few hundred metres:  T 1-62.14 and .20   See also Mr Schomburgk’s evidence at T 1-45.27, 1-46.5 and 1-49.

[59]  Ms Roughan at T 1-65.38.

[60]  Mr Schomburgk at T 1-50.45.

[61]  As noted by Ms Roughan, at least in terms of privacy, at JER [104].

[62]  Ms Roughan at T 1-61.

[63]  Transcript at T 2.5.29 to 2-6.13.

[64]  Ms Roughan at JER [104].

[65]  Mr Wust’s written submissions at [37].

[66]  T 1-48 to 1-51.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Wust v Moreton Bay Regional Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Wust v Moreton Bay Regional Council

  • MNC:

    [2017] QPEC 27

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Bowskill DCJ

  • Date:

    25 May 2017

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
SDW Projects Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (2007) QPELR 24
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2007) QPELR 24
Cite 2 - (2007) QPELR 24
Cite 3 - (2007) QPELR 24
Walker v Western Downs Regional Council [2015] QPELR 795
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QPELR 795
Cite 2 - [2015] QPELR 795
Waverley Road Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (2011) 187 LGERA 352
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2011) 187 LGERA 352
Cite 2 - (2011) 187 LGERA 352
Cite 3 - (2011) 187 LGERA 352
Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council (2004) QPELR 337
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) QPELR 337
Cite 2 - (2004) QPELR 337
Cite 3 - (2004) QPELR 337
Woolworths Ltd v Maryborough City Council (No 2)[2006] 1 Qd R 273; [2005] QCA 262
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] 1 Qd R 273
Zappala Family Company Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (2014) 201 LGERA 82
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2014) 201 LGERA 82
Cite 2 - (2014) 201 LGERA 82

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Wust v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2) [2017] QPEC 361 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.