Download the judgement

Application – Integrated Planning Act 1997 - Minor Change - Meaning of Minor Change – Flooding Impacts – Visual Amenity

Facts: This was an interlocutory application by the Appellant for an order that proposed changes to its development proposal constituted a minor change within section 4.1.52(2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld)(IPA) and section 821 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) (SPA).

The development proposal related to a residential housing estate at Todds Road, Lawnton which involved the development of 216 allotments over 12 stages, including the development of 79 allotments on a created island known as the "Island Platform". Access to the island was by way of a bridge. The proposal was impact assessable.

The matter was decided under the IPA (by operation of sections 802(2), 819(5)(a) and 819(6) of SPA), however under section 821(2)(b) of SPA, the relevant definition of "minor change" was that set out in s. 350 of the SPA.

The proposed changes to the proposal consisted of raising the level of the Island Platform (an area of 8.9 ha) and the height of the access bridge by 1.1 metres and changing the island bridge design from a BEBO Arch bridge to a Land bridge involving ten culverts. There had been two previous minor change applications regarding the project, one granted and one dismissed.

The main question for the court was whether the proposed changes amounted to "substantially different development" and therefore were not a "minor change" under s. 350 of the SPA.

Statutory Guideline 06/09 set out when a change may result in a "substantially different development". It was common ground that the two relevant criteria to the application related to whether the proposed changes:

  1. dramatically changed the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance; and / or
  2. introduced new impacts or increased the severity of known impacts.

The application was opposed by the Council on the basis that:

  1. the new plans represented a substantial change from a flood risk perspective; and
  2. the proposed changes included unacceptable visual amenity aspects.

Much of the decision turned on the evidence of the engineers. The Appellant's flood expert engineer focussed on storm and flood events and concluded that the proposed changes did not introduce new flooding impacts. The Council's expert disagreed and said the plans represented a substantial change in flood risk. The Appellant's visual amenity engineer said there would be not be a significant change in visual appearance however the Council's expert said there would be as the new bridge was significantly different and there was a lack of screening.

Decision: The Court held, in granting the application, that:

  1. the proposed changes must be considered in light of the entire development application
  2. the proposed changes did not dramatically change the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance or introduce new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts
  3. the increased elevation of the island platform, bridge and road approach would not introduce new flooding impacts
  4. the difference in the visual impact of the development between the two plans was not significant so far as the vegetation screening was concerned. The increase in the height of the bridge and road or its design would not have a greater visual impact than the structure proposed under the original plan
  5. the changes proposed were considered minor changes within the meaning of that term in the SPA s 350(1)(d).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.