Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2017
  4. Jackson v Brisbane City Council - [2017] QPEC 72

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

Jackson v Brisbane City Council[2017] QPEC 72

Jackson v Brisbane City Council[2017] QPEC 72

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jackson v Brisbane City Council [2017] QPEC 72

PARTIES:

KIM JACKSON
(appellant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

5054 of 2016

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 and 14 November 2017 and further written submissions received on 16 November 2017, 20 November 2017 and 21 November 2017

JUDGE:

Kefford DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where the appellant owns two long narrow lots in the low density residential zone – where the appellant made an application to realign the boundaries to achieve two square lots, including a rear lot of less than 600 square metres – where Council refused the development application for the reconfiguration of the lots – whether a decision to approve the proposed development would conflict with the planning scheme – whether the lots are appropriately sized and configured – whether the proposed development maintains a block pattern that accommodates traditional backyards – whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant approval despite the conflict

LEGISLATION:

Planning Act 2016 (Qld), s 107, s 164, s 288, s 311

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), s 314, s 324, s 326, s 345, s 346, s 347, s 349, s 461, s 493, s 495

CASES:

Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heavens Door Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 2004 220 CLR 472, applied

Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd as Trustee for Westlink Industrial Trust & Ors; Keep Lockyer Rural Inc v Westlink Pty Ltd as Trustee for Westlink Industrial Trust & Ors [2012] QCA 370[2013] 2 Qd R 302, applied

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 335, applied

Rofail v Wells [2011] QPEC 125; [2011] QPELR 419, approved

Steendyk v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2016] QPEC 47; [2016] QPELR 868, approved

Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Sugarbag Road Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] QPEC 124; [2012] QPELR 139, approved

Tighe & Anor v Pike & Ors [2016] QCA 353, followed

Zappala Family Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2014] QCA 147; (2014) 201 LGERA 82, applied

COUNSEL:

D Whitehouse for the appellant

B D Job for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Connor O'Meara for the appellant

Brisbane City Legal Practice for the respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction3

The subject site and locality3

The decision framework4

The issues5

City Plan6

Conflict with the Subdivision code7

Conflict with the Low density residential zone code12

Nature and extent of conflict18

Grounds19

Proposed lot 1 and the retention of the existing building23

Conclusion27

Introduction

  1. [1]
    The appellant owns two long narrow lots at 36 – 38 Teesdale Street, Corinda, each approximately 10 metres wide and 40 metres long. She applied to Brisbane City Council (“Council”) to realign the boundaries to achieve two square lots.  This appeal is against Council’s decision to refuse her development application for reconfiguration of the lots.

The subject site and locality

  1. [2]
    The subject site is improved by a post 1946 house that straddles the lots and is located towards the Teesdale Street frontage.[1]  Access is presently gained from Richmond Street via an access easement over the adjoining land to the rear.[2]  There is currently no vehicular access to the front of the existing house. 
  1. [3]
    Although the subject site fronts road reserve for Teesdale Street, the formed part of the street terminates at a cul-de-sac in front of the adjoining house to the east.[3]  There is a large Poinciana tree and a leopard gum within the road reserve in front of the subject site.  These trees contribute to the streetscape of Teesdale Street.[4]  The house, on the other hand, is not prominent.
  1. [4]
    The rear of the subject site is not visible from Teesdale Street due to a combination of existing vegetation, the width of the existing house and the topography (as the subject site falls away from Teesdale Street).[5]  It is only partially visible from Richmond Street, with the view limited to that which is available along the existing easement driveway.[6] 
  1. [5]
    The southern side of Teesdale Street contains:
  1. (a)
    eight dwellings on long, narrow lots;
  1. (b)
    one vacant long, narrow lot, which will likely be developed for a house;
  1. (c)
    three dwellings, including that on the subject site, each of which straddle two long and narrow lots; and
  1. (d)
    two dwellings on square shaped lots, located towards the corner of Teesdale Street and Ardoyne Road, each with direct frontage to the road.[7]
  1. [6]
    The northern side of Teesdale Street contains an area of open space that falls away to the Brisbane River.[8] 
  1. [7]
    To the north, at 1 and 3 Tapley Street, are two houses that each gain access from Teesdale Street, but that have a frontage to Tapley Street.[9]
  1. [8]
    To the south, on either side of Richmond Street, the existing pattern of development is similar to that on the southern side of Teesdale Street. There is a predominance of houses on long, narrow lots, with some lots containing larger houses that straddle two long, narrow lots.[10]

The decision framework

  1. [9]
    The appeal was commenced under s 461 of the now repealed Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld).  Pursuant to s 311 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld), the appeal is to be decided under the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. 
  1. [10]
    The appeal proceeds by way of hearing anew.[11]  The appellant bears the onus of establishing that the appeal should be allowed and the development application approved.[12]
  1. [11]
    The development application was made in March 2016.[13]  At that time, Brisbane City Plan 2014 (“City Plan”) was in force.
  1. [12]
    As the development application was impact assessable, it is to be assessed having regard to s 314 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and decided in accordance with s 324 and s 326.  Pursuant to s 326, a decision must not conflict with the City Plan unless, relevantly, there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.
  1. [13]
    Conflict means “at variance or disagree with”.[14]
  1. [14]
    The word “grounds” is defined in Schedule 3 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 as:

“1. Grounds means matters of public interest.

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

The issues

  1. [15]
    The issues to be determined in this appeal are:
  1. (a)
    whether a decision to approve the proposed development would conflict with:
  1. (i)
    the Strategic framework, particularly:
  1. (a)
    Theme 2 – strategic outcome 3.4.1(1)(i), specific outcome SO5 and land use strategy L5.1; and
  1. (b)
    Theme 5 – strategic outcomes s 3.7.1(1)(g)(iii) and (4), element 5.5, specific outcome SO4 and land use strategy L4.1 and 4.2;
  1. (ii)
    the purpose in s 6.2.1.1(2)(a) and (d) and overall outcomes s 6.2.1.1(4)(a) and (5)(b) of the Low density residential zone code; and
  1. (iii)
    overall outcomes s 9.4.10.2(2)(a), (b) and (c) and performance outcomes PO1, PO6 and PO30 of the Subdivision code;[15] and
  1. (b)
    the nature and extent of the conflict and whether there are sufficient grounds to justify approval of the proposed development notwithstanding conflict with City Plan.
  1. [16]
    The alleged conflicts represent a considerable narrowing of those provisions previously relied on by Council. However, Council submits that the deletion of other provisions with which conflict was previously alleged should not be taken to mean that those provisions are positively fulfilled by the proposed development. Instead, the nature of each abandoned provision is such that, of itself, the provision does not give rise to plainly identified conflict in the circumstances of this appeal.[16]
  1. [17]
    The previously identified issues in relation to stormwater and lawful point of discharge have resolved on the basis that, in the event the appeal is allowed and the application approved, a condition will be imposed requiring the demonstration of the ability to provide a lawful point of discharge in accordance with the applicable codes.

City Plan

  1. [18]
    Under City Plan, the subject site is located in the Suburban Living Area, the Low density residential zone and the Sherwood-Graceville district neighbourhood plan area.
  1. [19]
    Section 5.3.3(1)(d) of City Plan states that for impact assessable development:

“(i) development must be assessed against all identified code(s) in the assessment criteria column (where relevant);

  1. (ii)
    development must be assessed against the planning scheme, to the extent relevant.”
  1. [20]
    The relevant applicable codes are the Subdivision code and the Low density residential zone code.
  1. [21]
    Section 5.3.3(1)(c) of City Plan provides a useful guide about the process of assessing development against identified codes. It states:[17]

“(i) development must be assessed against all the applicable codes identified in the assessment criteria column;

(ii) …

  1. (iii)
    development that complies with:
  1. (A)
    the purpose and overall outcomes of the code complies with the code;
  1. (B)
    the performance or acceptable outcomes where prescribed complies with the purpose and overall outcomes of the code;
  1. (iv)
    development must have regard to the purposes of any instrument containing an applicable code;”
  1. [22]
    The section also includes a “Note” that confirms that in relation to s 5.3.3(1)(c)(iv) of City Plan, and in regard to s 313(3)(d) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, the Strategic framework is considered to be the purpose of the instrument containing an applicable code.

Conflict with the Subdivision code

  1. [23]
    The purpose of the Subdivision code is to regulate development for reconfiguring a lot.[18]  It is to be achieved through the overall outcomes, which include:[19]

“(a) Development for reconfiguring a lot facilitates the creation of suitable lots for their intended use while not adversely impacting on the lawful use or intended values of other premises.

  1. (b)
    Development for reconfiguring a lot creates a lot of an appropriate size, dimensions and arrangement consistent with the outcomes for the zones, zone precincts, neighbourhood plans and overlays which apply to the site.
  1. (c)
    Development for reconfiguring a lot provides lots and an arrangement of lots for lawful uses consistent with the uses, zone, zone precincts, neighbourhood plans and overlays which apply to the site and that meet the provisions of the planning scheme.”

(emphasis added)

  1. [24]
    I accept the submission on behalf of Council that it is apparent that what is intended is lots that are sized and arranged to be consistent with the outcomes of the zone and that will enable uses on those lots to be consistent with outcomes sought in the zone.[20]
  1. [25]
    This intention is reinforced by performance outcomes PO1, PO6 and PO30 and the associated acceptable outcomes, which state:[21]

“Section A – General criteria for reconfiguring a lot

PO1

Development creates a lot with dimensions which enable lawful uses appropriate to the intended use and consistent with zones, zone precincts, neighbourhood plans and overlays which apply to the site and are intended for the locality under the planning scheme.

AO1.1

Development provides lots which enable the relevant outcomes and standards required by the planning scheme to be complied with for the intended use.

AO1.2

Development provides lots with dimensions in compliance with Table 9.4.10.3.B.

…

AO1.5

Development requiring a building envelope plan or a development footprint plan ensures the building envelope plan or development footprint plan is shown on the plan of subdivision to be registered for the lot.

Note-A building envelope plan or a development footprint plan can be a means of addressing a range of site development matters. Other pars of this code and other codes determine the circumstances for the application of a building envelope plan or a development footprint plan.

Note-A building envelope plan or a development footprint plan may also be used to determine where other matters are registered on title, such as a registered environmental covenant over land outside of the building envelope or development footprint which is not to be the subject of vegetation clearing.

PO6

Development provides for the rearrangement of a lot boundary which results in the lot having a dimension and size that is consistent with a lawful use intended for the site and locality.

AO6 .1

Development ensures that no additional lots are created.

AO6.2

Development which is located in an established area ensures that the pattern, character, arrangement, size and configuration of lots is consistent with the established area.

Section C2-Detailed criteria for a development footprint plan involving residential small lots

PO30

Development ensures that each small lot has an area of suitable size, dimensions and arrangement to enable the development of a dwelling house and associated ancillary structures and access without adversely impacting the intended character of a locality and the natural, character or heritage features of the lot.

Note-This performance outcome is reflected in a development footprint plan that forms part of the survey plan and title.

Note-Compliance with all of the minimum requirements indicated in Table 9.4.10.3.B satisfies this outcome other than potentially where a development footprint plan is needed to address AO30.1(e).

AO30.1

Development ensures each small lot has a development footprint plan which identifies an area including:

  1. (a)
    an area that complies with the minimum rectangle area identified in Table 9.4.10.3.B;
  1. (b)
    a suitable area for a dwelling house and other ancillary structures to be developed in compliance with the building and planning standards, specifications and outcomes including building setbacks;
  1. (c)
    ancillary buildings and structures, such as garages and decks;
  1. (d)
    vehicle parking areas, access and driveways;
  1. (e)
    the location of trees and tree protection zones or other natural, character or heritage features outside the development footprint plan.”

(emphasis added)

  1. [26]
    A “small lot” is defined as a lot that is less than 450 square metres or a rear lot of less than 600 square metres (excluding an access way).[22] 
  1. [27]
    Mr Perkins, the town planner retained by the appellant, expressed the view that the proposed development complies with these provisions. His view was premised on the basis that the proposed lot dimensions are adequate to accommodate:
  1. (a)
    the exiting house on proposed lot 1, which the appellant submits could be the subject to a condition that imposes a three dimensional building envelope with the same dimensions as the existing dwelling, or alternatively a condition that no use shall be made of proposed lot 1 other than generally in accordance with the existing dwelling house.  If such conditions could lawfully be imposed and restrict future development, the rear setback would be in the order of about 3 metres;[23] and
  1. (b)
    a building envelope, proposed by the appellant, on proposed lot 2 with:
  1. (i)
    3 metres setback to the northern boundary;
  1. (ii)
    1.5 metres setback to the eastern and western boundaries;
  1. (iii)
    6 metres setback to the southern boundary; and
  1. (iv)
    dimensions of 17.06 metres x 11 metres, providing an area of approximately 187 square metres.[24]
  1. [28]
    I accept that a dwelling house could be accommodated within a building envelope on each of the proposed lots that meets:
  1. (a)
    the requirements in Table 9.4.10.3.B in the Subdivision code of:[25]
  1. (i)
    a minimum average width and minimum frontage of ten metres;
  1. (ii)
    a minimum rectangle dimension of 9 metres x 15 metres;
  1. (b)
    the requirements in acceptable outcome AO2.1 of the Dwelling house (small lot) code of a minimum street frontage setback of six metres,[26] being the applicable standard given the adjoining dwelling houses have a setback of six metres or more;[27] and
  1. (c)
    the requirements in acceptable outcome AO2.5 of the Dwelling house (small lot) code of a minimum rear boundary setback of 3 metres for a wall up to 4.5 metres high or 4.5 metres for a wall over 4.5 metres high.[28]
  1. [29]
    The ability to achieve a dwelling in compliance with those provisions demonstrates compliance with acceptable outcomes AO1.2 and AO30.1(a) of the Subdivision code and acceptable outcomes AO1.1 and AO30.1(b) of the Subdivision code to the extent that it calls up acceptable outcomes AO2.1 and AO2.5 of the Dwelling house (small lot) code. It also assists in demonstrating, as opined by Mr Perkins,[29] that the proposed reconfiguration will permit an outcome that has no adverse impact on amenity considerations such as access to sunlight and privacy outcomes.
  1. [30]
    However, the ability to accommodate an acceptable building envelope does not demonstrate that the proposed development does not conflict with the Subdivision Code.
  1. [31]
    Reference to Table 9.4.10.3B[30] reveals that, as an acceptable outcome, rear lots of less than 600 square metres are contemplated by City Plan in some zones, but not in the Low density residential zone.  As such, the proposed development does not comply with acceptable outcome AO1.2. 
  1. [32]
    A decision to approve the proposed development would also not comply with AO6.2 as the proposed reconfiguration is located in an established area and would result in a pattern, character arrangement, size and configuration of lots that is not consistent with the established area. There is a remarkable regularity to the pattern of lots, and the size and configuration of the lots, in the block bounded by Teesdale Street, Ardoyne Road and Richmond Street and the adjoining block bounded by Richmond Street, Ardoyne Road and Oxley Terrace. With the exception of two adjoining square lots at 6 Teesdale Street and 21 Ardoyne Road (located proximate the corner of Teesdale Street and Ardoyne Road) and two adjoining lots at 20 and 22 Richmond Street (which appear to be approximately 15 metres wide and 40 metres long), these two blocks contain lots that appear to be approximately 10 metres in width and 40 metres in length.  All lots have a direct street frontage: they all have an aspect and direct relationship to the street.[31]  The approval of a rear lot with no direct street frontage would be a notable disruption in the pattern and configuration of lots in this established area.[32]  I accept the evidence of Mr Walker that the proposed development would be out of character in the locality.[33]
  1. [33]
    Overall outcomes (a), (b) and (c), performance outcomes PO1, PO6 and PO7 and acceptable outcomes AO1.1 and AO30.1(b) of the Subdivision Code call for proposed lots to be of a size, dimension and arrangement consistent with the Low density residential zone and the Sherwood-Graceville district neighbourhood plan.
  1. [34]
    For reasons outlined in more detail below, the proposed development would not provide lots of a size, dimension and arrangement consistent with the Low density residential zone and the Sherwood-Graceville district neighbourhood plan. This is primarily by reason of its incorporating a rear lot of less than 600 square metres, contrary to the clear requirement in overall outcome (5)(b) of the Low density residential zone code. It also creates a block pattern that is inconsistent with the traditional backyards pattern and character intended in the Low density residential zone and the Sherwood-Graceville district neighbourhood plan. As such, a decision to approve the proposed development would conflict with Overall outcomes (a), (b) and (c), performance outcomes PO1, PO6 and PO7 and acceptable outcomes AO1.1 and AO30.1(b) of the Subdivision Code.

Conflict with the Low density residential zone code

  1. [35]
    The purpose of the Low density residential zone code is to:[34]

“(a) Implement the policy direction in the Strategic framework, in particular:

  1. (i)
    Theme 2: Brisbane’s outstanding lifestyle, Element 2.1 — Brisbane’s identity and Element 2.2 – Brisbane’s housing and accommodation choices;
  1. (ii)
    Theme 5: Brisbane’s CityShape and Element 5.5 — Brisbane’s Suburban Living Areas.

…

  1. (d)
    Ensure development occurs on appropriately sized and configured lots and is of a form and scale that reinforces a distinctive subtropical character of low rise, low density buildings set in green landscaped areas.”
  1. [36]
    The policy direction in the strategic framework is evident, in part, in the strategic outcomes for Theme 2: Brisbane’s outstanding lifestyle, which are set out in section 3.4.1 of the Strategic framework in City Plan and include, relevantly:[35]

“(i) Brisbane’s housing choices are integrated within the communities and neighbourhoods of the city in a form appropriate to the locality and are consistent with the outcomes for the relevant Growth Nodes on Selected Transport Corridors or Suburban Living Areas.”

(emphasis added)

  1. [37]
    This strategic outcome is further refined and described in the specific outcomes for Element 2.1 - Brisbane’s identity, addressed in table 3.4.2.1, which include specific outcome SO5.  It states “Brisbane’s development and infrastructure strengthens local identity”.[36]
  1. [38]
    The corresponding land use strategies include L5.1, which states:[37]

“L5.1 

Development responds to and reinforces locally distinctive design, landscape, heritage, social values, patterns of development and culture.”

(emphasis added)

  1. [39]
    The importance of local block patterns in low density areas is reinforced by specific outcome SO8 and land use strategy L8, which state:[38]

“SO8

Brisbane’s backyards contribute strongly to local character by providing green landscape in urban areas.

L8

Development in low density areas of Suburban Living Areas predominantly maintains a block pattern that accommodates backyards and large trees.”

(emphasis added)

  1. [40]
    For Theme 5, the strategic outcomes refer to Brisbane’s Suburban Living Areas, which represent the majority of established residential suburbs in Brisbane. In these areas, impacts on local amenity and values are to be carefully considered.[39]  They comprise, relevantly, localities identified in overlays, neighbourhood plans and the zoning patterns as having “a particular character or value that is desired to be retained with very little visible change over the life of the planning scheme”.[40]
  1. [41]
    Section 3.7.1(4) states:[41]

“Development which does not comply with the zone, zone precinct, neighbourhood plan or the Priority infrastructure plan must be consistent with the Strategic framework.”

  1. [42]
    Within Element 5.5 – Brisbane’s Suburban Living Areas:
  1. (a)
    specific outcome SO1 states “Suburban Living Areas experience growth in response to local context” and land use strategy L1 confirms that “[t]he zoning pattern shows the development intent that is consistent with local values, constraints and opportunities”;[42]
  1. (b)
    specific outcome SO4 and the corresponding land use strategies state:[43]

“SO4

The local character which is typically defined by features such as consistent block size and house spacing, an established road pattern, a predominance of detached housing, the presence of mature vegetation and gardens and by local typography is maintained.

L4.1

Infill development is limited to instances where the resulting lot size reflects that which predominates in the neighbourhood.

L4.2

The siting, scale and lot coverage of new housing is consistent with the existing neighbourhood character of well-spaced houses and vegetated backyards.

L4.3

Development supports high levels of local amenity and air quality and enhances these areas, contributing to the sustainability of the city through:

  1. (a)
    the retention of mature and significant vegetation;
  1. (b)
    the retention of private open space capable of supporting trees and gardens;
  1. (c)
    increasing local shade cover along streets;
  1. (d)
    local sustainability initiatives such as water-sensitive urban design.”

(emphasis added)

  1. [43]
    The provisions from the Strategic framework referred to above indicate that block sizes and patterns and house spacing is not only relevant to consideration of amenity impacts, but also informs local character considerations. In terms of character, the provisions highlight an intention that there is consistency in lot patterns in low density areas and that lots accommodate backyards capable of sustaining large trees.
  1. [44]
    The purpose of the Low density residential zone code, including those provisions of the Strategic framework referred to above, is intended to be achieved through the overall outcomes.[44]  They include:
  1. (a)
    overall outcome (5)(b), which states:[45]

“Development for a dwelling house:

  1. (i)
    not on a rear lot, has a minimum lot size of 400m2;
  1. (ii)
    on a rear lot, has a minimum lot size of 600m2;
  1. (iii)
    maintains a block pattern that accommodates traditional backyards and large trees.”

(emphasis added)

  1. (b)
    overall outcome (5)(c), which states:[46]

“Development supports a subtropical character by ensuring that a dwelling house on a small lot is of a size and scale that minimises negative impacts on amenity and private open space of other dwellings by maintaining access to sunlight, daylight and privacy.”

  1. (c)
    overall outcome (5)(d), which states:[47]

“Development for a dwelling house on a small lot comprising a new premises or an increase in gross floor area of an existing premises is located within a defined building envelope that:

  1. (i)
    provides safety from fire hazards;
  1. (ii)
    maximises the retention of backyard spaces as private landscaped space;
  1. (iii)
    avoids overbearing development involving bulk or setback which is inconsistent with the character of a dwelling house on an adjoining lot.”

(emphasis added).

  1. [45]
    As can be seen from the quote above, overall outcome (5)(b) of the Low density residential zone code contains a quantitative statement of intent, namely that rear lots have a minimum lot size of 600 square metres. It is uncommon for an overall outcome, as opposed to a performance outcome or acceptable outcome, to be expressed in quantitative terms. As was submitted by Council, this evinces a deliberate intention that the quantitative measure contained in the overall outcome is not intended to be flexible, particularly where the Code in question does not contain “alternatives” in the form of performance outcomes or acceptable outcomes.[48]  The establishment of rear lots of the order of no less than 600 square metres is evidently one of the values that is desired to be retained in the Low density residential zone with very little visible change over the life of the planning scheme.[49]
  1. [46]
    The proposed development conflicts with overall outcome (5)(b) as it facilitates the development of a rear lot with a minimum lot size of less than 600 square metres for a dwelling house.
  1. [47]
    Although the overall outcome refers to development of a dwelling house, rather than reconfiguration of a lot, the provision nevertheless has relevance to this application as:
  1. (a)
    the Low density residential zone code is an applicable code for an application for a development permit for the reconfiguration of lots;
  1. (b)
    part of the purpose of the Low density residential zone code, which is to be achieved by the overall outcomes, includes ensuring development occurs on appropriately sized and configured lots;
  1. (c)
    provisions of the Subdivision Code referred to above call up the outcomes for the applicable zone; and
  1. (d)
    the planning scheme is to be read as a whole and on the basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals.[50]
  1. [48]
    Like the provisions of the Strategic framework referred to earlier, overall outcomes (5)(b), (c) and (d) of the Low density residential zone code seek consistency in lot patterns in low density areas; and lots that accommodate backyards capable of sustaining large trees.
  1. [49]
    It is readily apparent from Exhibit 9 that the proposed development would disrupt the consistency that presently exists.
  1. [50]
    I am also not satisfied that the proposed development would accommodate traditional backyards. Were the existing house maintained on proposed lot 1, the resultant backyard would be severely curtailed.
  1. [51]
    The Sherwood-Graceville district neighbourhood plan code reinforces the importance of maintaining a traditional backyard pattern. Performance outcome PO1 requires that development “maintains the traditional backyard pattern and character of the area, with a proportion of the site set aside for open space rather than built structures” and “retains large trees and provides substantial areas for landscaping consistent with the established traditional landscape character of the area.”  Acceptable outcome AO1.2 states “Development has a minimum rear boundary setback of 6m”. 
  1. [52]
    With the existing dwelling in place, the rear setback of proposed lot 1 would not comply with this acceptable outcome. It would also not maintain the traditional backyard pattern and character of the area.[51]
  1. [53]
    If, instead, a new dwelling was to be constructed with a rear setback of 6 metres, given proposed lot 1 has a depth of only 20 metres:
  1. (a)
    the front setback would be less than the 6 metres sought in acceptable outcome AO2.3 of the Dwelling house (small lot) code;[52] or
  1. (b)
    the resultant building envelope would have a rectangle dimension of less than the 9 metres x 15 metres referred to in Table 9.4.10.3.B in the Subdivision Code. 
  1. [54]
    Little evidence was adduced by the appellant about the suitability of proposed lot 1 and the appropriateness of the size and dimensions of proposed lot 1. The appellant’s case was, in this respect, premised on the retention of the existing building. I will return to this issue later.
  1. [55]
    I am also not satisfied that proposed lot 2 would accommodate a “traditional backyard”.  The proposed building envelope provides for the majority of the private open space to be located on the southern side of proposed lot 2.  The access for that proposed lot is from the south.  Given the access arrangement, and proposed lot 2’s absence of street frontage, any dwelling house is likely to present or orientate itself to the south.  As such, the six metre rear setback will likely present as a front yard to a future dwelling on the lot.[53] 
  1. [56]
    The appellant has not demonstrated that the proposed development maintains a block pattern that accommodates “traditional backyards”, nor that the proposed lots are appropriately sized and configured.  A decision to approve the proposed development would conflict with the purpose and overall outcomes of the Low density residential zone code.

Nature and extent of conflict

  1. [57]
    Council submits that while the proposal the subject of the appeal may be modest, it nevertheless is one that fundamentally conflicts with a clearly expressed intention within City Plan. I agree.
  1. [58]
    As I have noted above, the identification of a minimum lot size of 600 square metres for rear lots in the Low density residential zone code is in the overall outcomes for that code, with no corresponding performance outcomes or acceptable outcomes. This is unusual in the context of a planning scheme that otherwise generally adopts a performance based approach. That underscores the importance that City Plan attaches to the outcomes sought in relation to the size and configuration of lots in the Low density residential zone.
  1. [59]
    The proposed development represents more than a minor or technical deviation from the quantitative standard included in overall outcome (5)(b) of the Low density residential zone code.
  1. [60]
    The conflict occasioned by the inadequate rear lot size is exacerbated by the lack of consistency with existing lot patterns, dimensions and configurations in the locality and the failure to maintain a block pattern that accommodates traditional backyards.

Grounds

  1. [61]
    The appellant relies on the following matters as grounds to justify approval of the proposed development:[54]
  1. (a)
    the development will result in a superior outcome, including with respect to amenity and streetscape, to that which would be achieved if the existing house was demolished and two new houses were constructed on the existing lots;
  1. (b)
    the development will not result in any additional lots being created, while enabling the existing house to be retained;
  1. (c)
    the development allows for the use of a second lot, while maintaining the Teesdale and Richmond Street streetscapes and mature vegetation;
  1. (d)
    the development provides a lot that can accommodate a building envelope which complies with setback requirements of the planning scheme, retains existing vegetation and does not create any adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties or otherwise;
  1. (e)
    the development will be readily accessible to the road network and, in particular, will not change the existing access arrangements to the land;
  1. (f)
    the development will add to housing choice in the locality;
  1. (g)
    the development will facilitate efficient use of the land;
  1. (h)
    the development is consistent with community expectations; and
  1. (i)
    the development otherwise complies with a substantial number of provisions of the planning scheme.
  1. [62]
    Council submits that the major thrust of the “grounds” is an absence of unacceptable amenity impact and notes that it is appropriate to bear in mind that the mere absence of adverse affects will not amount to sufficient grounds to outweigh a conflict with City Plan.[55]  The appellant did not cavil with Council’s submission. 
  1. [63]
    With respect to the grounds advanced by the appellant:
  1. (a)
    I do not accept that the appellant has demonstrated that the development will result in a superior outcome, including with respect to amenity and streetscape, to that which would be achieved if the existing house was demolished and two new houses were constructed on the existing lots, nor that, in any event, this amounts to a ground to overcome the conflicts that exist here, as:
  1. (i)
    development of narrow lots in the street and locality is common.  It has already occurred and is an outcome that is specifically envisaged by City Plan;
  1. (ii)
    it is not this court’s role to reconsider the correctness of the development outcome encouraged by the planning scheme, nor is it a matter of public interest that development that is squarely inconsistent with what the planning scheme intends be approved on the basis that it is preferable to that which the scheme does intend;
  1. (iii)
    the figures used by the appellant’s witness, Mr Perkins, to demonstrate the superior outcome were unreliable.  As was acknowledged by Mr Perkins, “Scenario 1”[56] depicted incorrect frontage setbacks.[57]  Also, the “complying” figure overlooked the acceptable outcomes of the Dwelling house (small lot) code[58] that stipulate that the combined total length of a dwelling house not exceed 25 metres[59] and that the maximum site cover is to be 50 per cent;[60]
  1. (iv)
    the concept of redevelopment of the whole site to accommodate a larger house involves substantial speculation.   In any event, it is an outcome which is specifically envisaged by the planning scheme, in contrast to the outcome which is proposed;
  1. (v)
    Mr Perkins’ analysis was ultimately that the outcome achievable as a result of the proposal is “at least equivalent” to the other scenarios he identified.[61]  That is not compelling as a ground, particularly one to overcome such obvious conflict.
  1. (b)
    the fact that no additional lots will be created is not a matter of public interest that warrants approval given the conflict is occasioned by the manner in which the boundary is sought to be reconfigured.  The existing house can be retained regardless of whether the approval is provided;
  1. (c)
    the Poinciana tree, which is an important part of the Teesdale streetscape, is in the road reserve and will be retained regardless of the development.  Further, the appellant has not demonstrated that development of the existing lots could not be achieved while maintaining both the Poinciana and the leopard tree.  I am also not satisfied that demolition of the existing house and construction of two new dwellings with a 6 metre setback, as encouraged by the Dwelling house (small lot) code, would not also essentially maintain the Teesdale and Richmond Street streetscapes.  As was acknowledged by Mr Perkins, the vegetation in the street obscures most of the house on the site from view for much of the street;[62]
  1. (d)
    even if the development provides lots that can accommodate building envelopes which are compliant with setback requirements of City Plan; retain existing vegetation; and do not create any adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties or otherwise, the compliance with those requirements of the planning scheme do not amount to a ground that justifies approval despite the conflict.  The provision of a setback compliant envelope on the rear lot does not, of itself, provide the amenity that City Plan intends will be provided to the occupants of rear lots in the Low density residential zone.  City Plan intends that rear lots, which do not have the benefit of “borrowing” space from the road reserve for their amenity, ought be afforded additional space as compared to lots that front a road;
  1. (e)
    the fact that the development will be readily accessible to the road network and, in particular, will not change the existing access arrangements to the land is not a matter that addresses the conflict, nor is it a matter of public interest that warrants approval given the nature of the conflict;
  1. (f)
    there is no evidence that the development will add to housing choice in the locality.  The proposed development only involves a reconfiguration of the boundaries.  The existing underlying lots could support two houses and there is no obligation for the existing dwelling to remain;
  1. (g)
    there is no evidence that the approval of the boundary realignment would, of itself, facilitate efficient use of the land.  Two lots presently exist.  They are capable of being developed, without the subject approval, to ensure that the land is used efficiently;
  1. (h)
    I do not accept that the development is consistent with community expectations given the conflicts identified above.  Although the residents of Teesdale Street may be generally supportive of the proposed development (on the basis that the existing house will remain), there were other submissions made against the proposed development.  Consideration of the content of submissions opposing the proposed development, including a submission from the adjoining neighbour to the rear over whose land the access easement is granted, reveals a general community awareness of the 600 square metre restriction for rear lots.  There is also an evident expectation that the settlement pattern in the neighbourhood will be maintained.  There was an appreciation evident in the submissions that this pattern may involve future development for dwelling houses, but an expectation that the development would likely involve houses that reinforce the existing predominant pattern of houses on long and narrow lots with road frontage and spacious backyard areas;[63] and
  1. (i)
    the fact that the development otherwise complies with a substantial number of provisions of City Plan is not a ground of itself.
  1. [64]
    I am not persuaded that there are grounds sufficient to justify approval of the proposed development despite the identified conflict.

Proposed lot 1 and the retention of the existing building

  1. [65]
    Finally, before disposing of the appeal, it seems appropriate that I say something about the appellant’s case insofar as it relied on the retention of the existing dwelling, particularly as the appellant appears to have regarded it to be of such importance as to warrant the provision of two further (short) sets of submissions after the end of the hearing.
  1. [66]
    As is noted in paragraphs [27] and [52] - [54] above, the appellant’s case was premised on an assumption that the existing building would be maintained.  The Written Submissions on behalf of the appellant described the proposed development as involving:

“(a) the realignment of the centre boundary from an approximate north-south orientation to an approximate east-west orientation to allow for the retention of Mrs Jackson’s dwelling;

  1. (b)
    the creation of a rear lot that will gain its access from an Easement connecting to Richmond Street to the South; and
  1. (c)
    a new access point for the (sic) Mrs Jackson’s dwelling to be gained from Teesdale Street.”

(emphasis added)

  1. [67]
    As part of its case, the appellant emphasised the neighbourhood support for the proposed development. She notes that 19 of the 29 properly made submissions received with respect to the development application were supportive of it.[64]  The grounds for support identified were that the proposed development:
  1. (a)
    would not result in any new lots and would preserve the existing dwelling;
  1. (b)
    would preserve the Teesdale and Richmond streetscapes and the existing Poinciana tree;
  1. (c)
    is preferred to existing narrow lots which result in less green and open space;
  1. (d)
    would result in a house on Lot 2 which will not create significant impacts on residential amenity;
  1. (e)
    is not an unreasonable outcome given the established residential neighbourhood;
  1. (f)
    will not change existing vehicular arrangements; and
  1. (g)
    has proposed setbacks for a future house that will be suitable.[65]
  1. [68]
    When one reads the submissions, it is evident that the expressions of support are closely linked to the retention of the existing dwelling and the Poinciana tree in the road reserve in front of the subject site. The same is true of the lay witness statements provided in support of the proposed development.[66]
  1. [69]
    In order to make good her case, the appellant offered to consent to a condition imposing a three dimensional building envelope of the same dimensions as the existing dwelling or a condition that requires the retention of the existing dwelling in terms such as the following:

“No use shall be made of lot 1 of the development approval other than generally in accordance with the existing dwelling house as shown on the approved plan – Reconfiguration Proposal Plan #36 & 38 Teesdale Street, Corinda Lot 69 & 70 on RP29762, 19/01/16.”

  1. [70]
    The appellant submits that such a condition would be lawful as:[67]
  1. (a)
    the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 includes provisions about conditions that may or may not be imposed as part of a development approval;[68]
  1. (b)
    the proposed conditions are not identified as a condition that must not be imposed; and
  1. (c)
    the proposed conditions are reasonably required in relation to the development or use of the premises as a consequence of the proposed development, particularly in circumstances where:
  1. (i)
    the retention of the existing house formed part of the appellant’s case;
  1. (ii)
    there would be no issue with enforceability, noting that such conditions are no more difficult for Council to enforce or police than a condition requiring development to be contained within a building envelope; and
  1. (iii)
    a similar style of condition has been imposed by the court previously, in an approval which Council consented to.  
  1. [71]
    Council noted that doubt surrounds the effectiveness of a condition of the type proposed by the appellant once the reconfiguration has been given effect.[69]  It also submits that, even if such a condition were imposed, there is no impediment to a subsequent development application being made with the effect of amending, or removing, the condition.[70] 
  1. [72]
    There is merit in Council’s submissions and I have considerable reservations about the appellant’s submissions.
  1. [73]
    I doubt the lawfulness of the proposed condition given the retention of the existing dwelling is not required to address the conflict caused by a decision to approve the proposed development. The conflict is occasioned by the size of the rear lot, the failure to maintain a block pattern that accommodates “traditional backyards” and the failure to ensure the lots are appropriately sized and configured.  When the nature of the conflict is borne in mind, it is difficult to appreciate how the condition could be characterised as one that is “reasonably required in relation to the development or use of the premises as a consequence of the proposed development”.
  1. [74]
    In a further supplementary note provided by her solicitors, the appellant submitted that “it will be open to the Respondent to pursue the owner and subsequent owners of the newly created lot/s for the commission of a development offence, in the event any such condition is not complied with.”[71]  The only authority provided for the submission was s 164 of the Planning Act 2016.  I also doubt the correctness of this submission.
  1. [75]
    Section 164 of the Planning Act 2016 states “a person must not contravene a development approval”.  A development approval includes the conditions imposed on the approval.[72]  
  1. [76]
    Assessable development is development for which a development approval is required. A development permit authorises the carrying out of assessable development to the extent stated in the decision notice.[73]  The development for which a development approval is required, and is being sought in this appeal, is reconfiguring a lot by, relevantly, rearranging the boundaries of a lot by registering a plan of subdivision.
  1. [77]
    A development approval only attaches to the premises and binds the owner, the owner’s successors in title and any occupier of the premises while a development approval is in effect.[74]  Further, a person is only responsible for complying with the conditions of an approval if they are exercising the rights conferred by the approval.[75]  Here, the right conferred is the right to implement rearrangement of the boundaries by registering a plan of subdivision.  Once the plan of subdivision is registered, the development approval is spent as the reconfiguration of a lot that it authorises has been carried out.[76] 
  1. [78]
    Further, demolition of the existing dwelling is not assessable development under the planning scheme;[77] and the construction of a new dwelling, or an extension to the existing dwelling, is not assessable development under the planning scheme where it complies with certain requirements.[78]  The demolition and construction of a new dwelling could lawfully be achieved without the need for a development approval assessed against the planning scheme.[79]  The appellant has not made an application for a preliminary approval to vary the effect of the planning scheme[80] to make such development assessable development rather than accepted development.  As such, the validity, and extent of operation, of a condition such as that suggested by the appellant, if later challenged or relied on to found enforcement proceedings, would be construed in that light (and, consequently, its operation would likely be read down).[81]
  1. [79]
    In any event, it is not necessary to resolve these issues. Regardless of whether the existing dwelling was maintained or a future dwelling on proposed lot 1 was contained within a three dimensional building envelope of the same dimensions as the existing dwelling, a decision to approve the proposed development would result in clear and substantial conflict with City Plan and there are not sufficient grounds to warrant its approval.

Conclusion

  1. [80]
    For the reasons provided above, I am not satisfied that the appellant has discharged her onus.  The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 2 [2.1.4].

[2]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 3 [2.1.6].

[3]  See Exhibit 9.

[4]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 3 [2.1.7].

[5]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 4 [2.1.8] and [2.2.2].

[6]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 4 [2.2.5].

[7]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 pp 3-4 [2.3.1]-[2.3.6]; Exhibit 9.

[8]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 4 [2.2.1]; Exhibit 9.

[9]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 6 [2.4.2]; Exhibit 9.

[10]  Exhibit 9.

[11] Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 495.

[12] Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 493.

[13]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 10 [3.2.1].

[14] Woolworths Ltd v Maryborough City Council (No 2) [2005] QCA 262; [2006] 1 Qd R 273, 286 [23]; Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 358; (2011) 185 LGERA 63, 72 [16]; [2012] QPELR 354.

[15]  Exhibit 7.

[16]  Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Council – Court Doc 16 p 4 footnote 5.

[17]  Exhibit 1A.

[18]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 105 s 9.4.10.2(1).

[19]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 105 s 9.4.10.2(2).

[20]  Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Council – p 8 [37].

[21]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 pp 106, 107, 109 and 120.

[22]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 191.

[23]  Supplementary Note provided by the Appellant – Court Doc 19 p 1 [2].

[24]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 pp 21-2 [5.4.1.1]-[5.4.1.6].

[25]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 125.

[26]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 91.

[27]  T1-32/L1 – T1-33/L6 (Perkins).

[28]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 93.

[29]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 18 [5.2.1.6].

[30]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 125.

[31]  T2-23/L34—43 (Walker).

[32]  Joint Expert Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 pp 20-1 [5.3.2.2] and p 23 [5.4.2.5].

[33]  T2-41/L27-32 (Walker).

[34]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 65 s 6.2.1.1(2).

[35]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 1 s 3.4.1(1).

[36]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 4.

[37]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 4.

[38]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 5.

[39]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 25 s 3.7.1(1)(g).

[40]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 25 s 3.7.1(1)(g)(iii).

[41]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 28.

[42]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 41 s 3.7.6.

[43]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 pp 41-2 s 3.7.6.

[44]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 65 s 6.2.1.1(3).

[45]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 66 s 6.2.1.1(5)(b).

[46]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 66 s 6.2.1.1(5)(c).

[47]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 67 s 6.2.1.1(5)(d).

[48]  Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Council – Court Doc 16 p 6 [27].

[49]  See strategic outcome 3.7.1(1)(g)(iii) in the Strategic framework – Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 25.

[50] Zappala Family Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2014] QCA 147; (2014) 201 LGERA 82; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 335.

[51]  See Exhibit 9.  T2-45/L21 – T2-46/L13 (Walker).

[52]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 91 and T1-32/L1 – T1-33/L6 (Perkins).

[53]  T2-46/L15 – T2-47/L9 (Walker).

[54]  Written Submissions on behalf of the Appellant – Court Doc 15 p 22 [100].

[55] Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd as Trustee for Westlink Industrial Trust & Ors; Keep Lockyer Rural Inc v Westlink Pty Ltd as Trustee for Westlink Industrial Trust & Ors [2012] QCA 370; [2013] 2 Qd R 302, 323-4 [25].  See Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Council – Court Doc 16 p 13 [63].

[56]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 137.

[57]  T1-31/L35 – T1-33/L5 (Perkins).

[58]  T1-34/L25-31 and T1-(Perkins).

[59]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 94 AO5.

[60]  Planning Scheme Extracts – Exhibit 6 p 93 AO3.

[61]  Joint Experts Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 25 [6.1.6].

[62]  T1-24/L11-15 (Perkins).  See also Exhibit 1 p 7.

[63]  See, for example, Exhibit 8 pp 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, 23, 26 and particularly the submission of the adjoining landowner at pp 45-49.

[64]  Written Submissions on behalf of the Appellant – Court Doc 15 p 7 [35].

[65]  Exhibit 8; Joint Exert Report – Town Planning – Exhibit 3 p 10 [3.2.4].

[66]  Bundle of Lay Witness Statements - Exhibit 2.

[67]  Supplementary Note provided by the Appellant – Court Doc 19 pp 1-2 [3].

[68] Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 345, s 346, s 347.

[69] Tighe v Pike & Ors [2016] QCA 353.

[70] Steendyk v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 47; [2016] QPELR 868.

[71]  Supplementary Note provided by the Appellant – Court Doc 20 p 2 [3].

[72] Planning Act 2016, s 49(5). 

[73] Planning Act 2016, s 49(3).  See also Planning Act 2016, s 288.

[74] Planning Act 2016, s 73.  See also Planning Act 2016, s 288.

[75]  Explanatory Notes, Planning Bill 2015 (Qld), p 86, clause 73; Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Sugarbag Road Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] QPEC 124; [2012] QPELR 139, 144-5 [24], [26], [31]; Steendyk v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2016] QPEC 47; [2016] QPELR 868, 885-6 [73]-[78].

[76] Tighe & Anor v Pike & Ors [2016] QCA 353, [46].  Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heavens Door Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 2004 220 CLR 472, 488-91 [45]-[55].  The potential for a clash of statutory rights “in rem” with the effective operation of a system of Torrens Title explains the existence of provisions such as s 349 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and s 107 of the Planning Act 2016, which contemplate the imposition of a condition requiring registration of a covenant.  It is difficult to appreciate the need for such provisions if development permits for reconfiguring a lot were not spent on the registration of the plan.  See also Rofail v Wells [2011] QPEC 125; [2011] QPELR 419, 423-425 [17]-[27].

[77]  T1-24/L1-2 (Perkins).

[78]  Submissions regarding Dwelling House Levels of Assessment – Court Doc 18.

[79]  Development approval under the Building Act 1975 would still be required.

[80] Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 242.

[81]  See, by way of analogy, Mimehaven Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council [2002] QCA 276.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Kim Jackson v Brisbane City Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Jackson v Brisbane City Council

  • MNC:

    [2017] QPEC 72

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Kefford DCJ

  • Date:

    23 Nov 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
Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heavens Door Pty Ltd (2004) 220 CLR 472
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) 220 CLR 472
Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heavens Door Pty Ltd [2004] HCA
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] HCA
Cite 2 - [2004] HCA
Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heavens Door Pty Ltd (2003) 220 CLR 472
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 220 CLR 472
Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink [2012] QPELR 354
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QPELR 354
Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 358
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCA 358
Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd[2013] 2 Qd R 302; [2012] QCA 370
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCA 370
Cite 2 - [2012] QCA 370
Cite 3 - [2013] 2 Qd R 302
Cite 4 - [2013] 2 Qd R 302
Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd & Ors (2011) 185 LGERA 63
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2011) 185 LGERA 63
Mimehaven Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council [2002] QCA 276
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2002] QCA 276
Project Blue Sky Inc & Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 335
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1998) 194 CLR 335
Cite 2 - (1998) 194 CLR 335
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1998] HCA 28
Cite 2 - [1998] HCA 28
Rofail v Wells [2011] QPEC 125
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QPEC 125
Cite 2 - [2011] QPEC 125
Rofail v Wells [2011] QPELR 419
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QPELR 419
Cite 2 - [2011] QPELR 419
Steendyk v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 47
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QPEC 47
Cite 2 - [2016] QPEC 47
Cite 3 - [2016] QPEC 47
Steendyk v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPELR 868
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QPELR 868
Cite 2 - [2016] QPELR 868
Cite 3 - [2016] QPELR 868
Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Sugarbag Road P/L & Anor [2011] QPEC 124
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QPEC 124
Cite 2 - [2011] QPEC 124
Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Sugarbag Road Pty Ltd [2012] QPELR 139
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QPELR 139
Cite 2 - [2012] QPELR 139
Tighe v Pike [2016] QCA 353
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCA 353
Cite 2 - [2016] QCA 353
Cite 3 - [2016] QCA 353
Woolworths Ltd v Maryborough City Council (No 2)[2006] 1 Qd R 273; [2005] QCA 262
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2005] QCA 262
Cite 2 - [2006] 1 Qd R 273
Zappala Family Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2014] QCA 147
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCA 147
Cite 2 - [2014] QCA 147
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
Casinco Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2022] QPEC 502 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

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

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.