An appeal against the refusal by the respondent of a development application. Issues included traffic and parking inadequacies, the potential for inappropriate management of unacceptable amenity impacts as well as whether the development was needed and whether the development was consistent with the strategic aims of the city.
As to parking and traffic inadequacies, the court found the development adequately provided for patrons and that it would be rare that all on-site car parks would be full. Further, it was unlikely that traffic would be affected by the development. There was also an issue as to visual amenity. It was found that the proposed development would not, on balance, result in an unacceptable impact on visual amenity nor would it result in unacceptable noise or air quality impacts.
It was deemed by Jones DCJ that the outcome of the case turned on compliance with the respondent’s planning scheme. It was found that the development was contrary to the planning scheme because the proposed development would not support the day to day needs of the immediate residential community. Instead, the proposed development was likely to instead benefit the wider community base. Not only was the proposed development contrary to the planning scheme it was also not deemed necessary due to the existence of a similar development in close proximity.
John Ware instructed by Townsville City Council Legal Services for the respondent, instructed by Townsville City Council Legal Services.
The judgment is published here.