You might also be interested in...
- http://mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=378210
- http://mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=378212
- http://mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=378214
- http://mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=378216
(Rackemann DCJ - 5 November 2014)
Download
the judgment
Planning and environment – application for change to a development approval – where GFA would markedly increase – whether permissible change.
Facts: The applicant sought a permissible change to a development approval for a place of worship at Upper Coomera granted in 2012.
The approval provided for a building of 1235m2 gross floor area, 195 paved car parking spaces and a range of uses associated with the primary use as a place of worship.
The primary proposed change was an increase in gross floor area of 32% to 1633m2 and an increase in car parking to 244, in order to facilitate a quarterly "stake" (a regional) conference being held at the facility. It was not intended that the change lead to a continuous increase in the use of the site on a day to day basis. Except for the stake conferences, maximum attendance at the site was to be capped at 500 people.
The site was large and separated from sensitive residential uses. The development application had attracted no adverse submissions. There had been no further residential uses developed in proximity to the subject development since the application was publicly notified.
Decision: The Court held that:
- In deciding whether the change would result in a substantially different development it was appropriate to have regard to Statutory Guideline 06/09. However, changes which resulted in the things referred to in the Statutory Guideline were not necessarily to be regarded as resulting in a substantially different development.
- The change to the scale and bulk of the proposal was significant in a numerical sense. However, when one had regard to the context, including the size of the subject site and its separation from sensitive land uses, the impact of the increase in scale and bulk was not significant.
- The changes did not result in a substantially different development and would be unlikely to cause a person to make a properly made submission objecting to the proposed change if the circumstances allowed. The change sought was within the scope of a permissible change and should be granted.
