Appeal against Council refusal of small lot development in
Large Lot Residential Zone – significance of existing
approval – whether proposal conflicted with the Ipswich
Planning Scheme 2006 – sufficient grounds
Facts: This was an appeal against Council's
decision to refuse a development application over a site at
The development application originally sought a preliminary
approval overriding the planning scheme to facilitate Residential
Low Density development and a development permit for
reconfiguration of a lot for Stages 1 – 3 of the development
(8 into 101 lots and 2 balance lots). The ultimate intention was to
develop the site for approximately 420 lots in 11 stages over 20
By the time of the hearing, the proposal had been amended to
reduce the total number of allotments to 341 lots.
The site was part of a larger area which had the benefit of an
existing approval for large lot development. Operational works
permits had been issued for Stages 1 and 2 of that development,
which immediately bordered the site.
The site was contained within the Large Lot Residential Zone
under Council's planning scheme.
The issues in dispute related to engineering (geotechnical,
hydrology and stormwater management and civil engineering),
ecology, character and visual amenity, town planning and need. At
the time of the hearing, engineering issues had essentially been
resolved between the parties' experts.
Decision: The Court held, in dismissing the
The Court should have regard to the existing approval, which
regard should extend to a consideration of the implications of that
approval for the subject site and any future impacts of development
under that approval.
The proposed development would have a significant impact on the
fauna and flora habitat areas of the site and on the ecological
values associated with natural vegetation of the area. It was also
inconsistent with the Vegetation Management Code under the planning
It was difficult to accept that the proposed development would
not erode and alter the existing character and amenity of the area.
The substantial increase in the number of lots and corresponding
decrease in their size was at odds with the existing character and
amenity of the site.
The proposal conflicted with the scheme. The conflict was more
There was no need for the proposed development.
None of the grounds advanced by Karalee, taken individually or
collectively, were sufficient to overcome the conflict so as to
justify approval of the application.
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).