(Searles DCJ - 3 April 2014)
Download the judgment

Planning and environment – Planning – Submitter appeal by local residents against the Council's approval of a development application by the Co-Respondent for the development of a 33 unit Multi Unit Dwelling development, being a 33 townhouse development spread over 10 buildings

Facts: This was a submitter appeal against Council's approval of a development application for the development of a 33 unit townhouse development spread over 10 buildings at 5 Darien Street, Bridgeman Downs. The proposal included the construction of a roundabout on Darien Road to service future development in lots to its north.

The issues in dispute were:

  1. whether the proposed development was in conflict with the Brisbane City Plan 2000 (City Plan);
  2. whether the proposed development would create a traffic hazard or parking problems in Darien Street; and
  3. if any conflict with City Plan was found, whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant approval despite that conflict.

Decision: The Court held, in dismissing the submitter appeal:

  1. The Applicant had demonstrated that the proposal did not conflict with the City Plan.
  2. Whilst different in style from most other housing in the area south of Darien Street, the proposal presented as a housing type contemplated by City Plan and was sympathetic to and harmonious with the area.
  3. There was no doubt that City Plan contemplated appropriate multi-unit development and there were existing residences in the locality which were larger than the four unit modules in the subject proposal.
  4. The proposal did not represent unreasonable exploitation of City Plan's provisions for high density development or lack sensitivity in layout or built form.
  5. City Plan's reference to a mix of lot sizes did not entitle one to look beyond the boundaries of the proposed site. It was clear that the mix of lot sizes must be included in the proposal. The requirement for a mix of large lots was met by the subdivision of the subject land to the two lots proposed.
  6. The proposed development satisfied the requirements for clusters of development in the Local Plan. The 10 buildings the subject of the proposal constituted a cluster of development as foreshadowed by the Local Plan.
  7. The proposal would have no adverse visual amenity or character impact on the area.
  8. None of the traffic or parking issues identified warranted refusal of the application.
  9. On balance, the proposal would improve the services and facilities available in the area by the provision of a more diverse, affordable style of housing. Need had been established.
  10. If a conflict with City Plan existed, it was a very minor one. There were sufficient grounds to justify approval.

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.