The case of Tokyo 2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council  QPEC 23 concerned an application in pending proceeding to the Planning and Environment Court (Court) for a minor change to a development permit for a material change of use for multiple dwellings (17 multiple dwellings) and for reconfiguring a lot (4 lots into 6 lots) at Indooroopilly.
The Court allowed part of the minor change application, but refused the part of the minor change application which related to changes to the environmental protection zone, which was relevant to the submissions and submitters in respect of the earlier appeal.
Court took into account the submissions in respect of the development application and the submitters in the appeal
The development application for the proposed development was the subject of an appeal to the Court. The Court stated that there had been a "significant number of submissions and submitters" actively involved in the appeal, whose attention was focused on landscaping and vegetation issues (see paragraph ). The Court ultimately issued the development permit for the proposed development.
The applicant sought to make a minor change to the development permit, and whilst the submitters had no active role in the minor change application, the Court held that their concerns and interests ought to be taken into account by the Court in exercising its discretion in determining whether the application for the minor change ought to be approved.
Court found that the proposed changes to the environmental protection zone would have an impact on adjoining owners
Of particular concern to the Court was the proposed change to the environmental protection zone, which would result in the possible removal of two previously protected trees and the expansion of the future building areas. The Court held that these changes would result in a very different outcome, both environmentally and aesthetically, for adjoining owners. The Court held that "[g]iven the legitimate aesthetic and ecological concerns of nearby residents, the proposed changes in this regard will result in a materially and importantly different development", and were therefore not minor changes (see paragraph ).
The Court therefore held that the changes, other than the changes to reduce the environmental protection zone, constitute a minor change under the Planning Act 2016.
This is commentary published by Colin Biggers & Paisley for general information purposes only. This should not be relied on as specific advice. You should seek your own legal and other advice for any question, or for any specific situation or proposal, before making any final decision. The content also is subject to change. A person listed may not be admitted as a lawyer in all States and Territories. © Colin Biggers & Paisley, Australia 2020.