Submitter appeal against integrated retirement and aged care
facility proposal in area zoned as Community Use Area CU2-Community
Facilities – application of Heritage Code to area surrounding
a Heritage Place – application of the Demolition Code to the
relocation of a pre-1946 dwelling within a Demolition Control
Precinct – amenity impacts of proposal on surrounding
Residential Area – clearly established economic need for the
Facts: On 19 October 2012 the respondent
Council approved the Co-respondent Greengate Property Group's
proposed development of an integrated retirement and aged care
facility at Taylor Street, Woolloongabba.
The land was designated as 'urban footprint' under the
South East Queensland Regional Plan and was zoned as 'Community
Use Area CU2-Community Facilities' under the planning scheme
(City Plan 2000). It was surrounded by pre-1946 housing in
a 'Character Residential Area' and it included a locally
listed heritage place (St Luke's Catholic Church) which was to
be retained and a pre-1946 dwelling ('Edwards House') which
was to be relocated on-site. Edwards House was located within a
Demolition Control Precinct.
The impact assessable Development Application received a number
of adverse submissions and on 15 November 2012, a number of those
submitters appealed against Council's decision. In response to
some of the issues raised by the appellants with respect to urban
design and visual amenity, Greengate amended the plans. However,
the appeal continued on the grounds of over-development and
conflict with the planning scheme.
At the time of the hearing, the issues remaining were:
The heritage value of the old St Luke's school;
The proposal was an over development of the land in the sense
that it would lead to an unacceptable impact on amenity of
surrounding residents and on character and heritage values both on
the land and in relation to the surrounding area.
The proposed removal of the priest's house would not only
comproise heritage and character values but would also have impacts
on amenity on its new neighbour in Buranda Street.
The Appellants submitted that the proposal conflicted
substantially with the planning scheme and there were not
sufficient grounds to overcome the conflict.
Decision: The Court held, in dismissing the
The long-term intention of the various previous iterations of
the planning scheme had been to protect character and heritage
values and this intention remained in the current scheme.
The proposal was generally inappropriate on the land, as the
proposed use was not within the definition of 'Community
facilities' in the planning scheme, but rather would be
considered 'Multi-unit dwelling.'
Notwithstanding that, the proposal did not conflict with the
East Brisbane / Coorparoo District – Local Plan and the
proposed residential use was an acceptable land use considering the
surrounding residential area.
The 'Application' section of the Demolition Code was a
guide as to the circumstances in which it was likely to be
considered in assessing an application, where no specific Relevant
Codes were identified in the Level of Assessment Table for Impact
Assessable Development. Greek Orthodox Community of St George
Brisbane v Brisbane City Council & Ors  Q.P.E.L.R
314; Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd v Queensland Heritage
Council  Q.P.E.C 9; Luke & Ors v Maroochy Shire
Council & Watpac Developments  Q.P.E.L.R 447
As St Luke's Catholic Church was entered in the Heritage
Register as a Heritage Place, but the surrounding land on the site
(including a former school) was not entered as a Heritage Precinct,
only the church had heritage significance. Calvis v Brisbane City
Council  Q.P.E.L.R. 35
It was not the Court's role to review the previous heritage
decision with respect to the school.
The proposal with respect to St Luke's Catholic Church did
not conflict with the Heritage Place Code.
The relocation of Edwards House (entirely within a Demolition
Control Precinct) was a minor conflict with the Demolition Code,
however the need established for the proposal was sufficient to
overcome this issue.
The overall development was of a density, bulk and scale
compatible with the surrounding Residential Areas, it did not
compromise local amenity and therefore it was not in conflict with
the planning scheme.
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Council announced planning policies to encourage more inner suburban retirement village and aged care development.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).