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:
whether the proposed development was in conflict with the
Brisbane City Plan 2000 (City Plan);
whether the proposed development would create a traffic hazard
or parking problems in Darien Street; and
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
The Applicant had demonstrated that the proposal did not
conflict with the City Plan.
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.
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
The proposal did not represent unreasonable exploitation of
City Plan's provisions for high density development or lack
sensitivity in layout or built form.
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.
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.
The proposal would have no adverse visual amenity or character
impact on the area.
None of the traffic or parking issues identified warranted
refusal of the application.
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
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.
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).