The Applicant sought an order pursuant to s72(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). The appellants sought to commence the development project in circumstances where the appeal would not be affected. The respondent imposed conditions with intent to use the dwelling house for a development application, resulting in substantial material change to the property. The applicant highlighted engineering evidence that demonstrated higher efficiency should the construction of the dwelling house occur concurrently as development of the adjoining property. The Court agreed.
The respondent contested through engineering evidence that the construction of Riverwalk would be a significant costly endeavour if work commenced after the completion of construction on the dwelling house. The Court identified no contractual obligations were in place to commence construction, highlighting the lack of time constraints.
The appellants highlighted the dwelling house was separate from the dedicated area for development, which would consequently remain unaffected. However, there would be interaction by occupants between the dwelling house and the proposed Riverwalk. The Court held it would be inappropriate in nature to grant the relief sought due to future occupants of the dwelling house claiming a loss of amenity, should the jetty be demolished.
John Ware appeared on behalf of Brisbane City Council, instructed by City Legal.
