(Searles DCJ - 20 June 2014)
Download the judgment

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 Karalee.

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 years.

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 appeal:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 scheme.
  3. 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.
  4. The proposal conflicted with the scheme. The conflict was more than minor.
  5. There was no need for the proposed development.
  6. 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.

You might also be interested in...