The Planning Scheme intended that the Coolum area remain a small scale centre and the subject site was not located within a Planning Area, namely the area north of Beach Road, south of Margaret Street and east of Sunshine Street and at the western end of Yandinda-Coolum Road, which permitted commercial and business activities, or industrial activities The Court of Appeal noted the P&E Court's reasons for dismissal of the appeal as follows: The development would result in beneficial traffic outcomes as a result of the upgrade of the surrounding roads and would benefit the community without an unacceptable impact. There was a need for the proposed development The proposed developments were of a type appropriate for the Precinct and of a lesser scale than the proposed development in Coolum Properties Īnother approval in the area, namely an approval for a supermarket, meant that the provisions of the Planning Scheme had been overtaken by subsequent events In the P&E Court, Bunnings argued that the appeal ought to be allowed and the development permit granted on the following grounds: P& E Court's finding of conflict with the Planning Scheme " an attractive coastal village, with a growing number of boutique eateries, shops and tourist facilities.a compact village centre and…provide only a limited range of goods and services to meet the immediate needs of residents and visitors to the locality". Planning Area 11 was described as being intended to be (at ): The subject site was designated urban in the Strategic Plan and located within the Master Planned Community (Precinct 7) ( Precinct 7) in Planning Area 11 (Coolum Beach) ( Planning Area 11). The development permit applied for by Bunnings sought approval of a material change of use of the subject site to a Bunnings Warehouse with a gross floor area ( GFA) of 8,600 square metres, and in the alternative a Bunnings Warehouse with a GFA of 5,850 square metres. Facts and circumstances of the development sought The Court of Appeal noted that the decision in Coolum Properties was sought to be appealed by an application for leave, which application the Court of Appeal also refused in the case of Coolum Properties Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council & Ors QCA 351 ( 2007 CoA Case). In Coolum Properties, the P&E Court considered the same provisions of the Planning Scheme as in the P&E Court Decision and determined that a Bunnings Warehouse of 5,815 square metres was in conflict with the Planning Scheme, and that there were insufficient grounds to overcome the conflict and allow an approval notwithstanding the conflict. The Court of Appeal observed that the P&E Court had previously considered whether the subject site ought to be approved for a development permit for a material change of use to a Bunnings Warehouse in the case of Coolum Properties Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council & Ors QPEC 13 ( Coolum Properties). That the reasons for judgment were insufficient and in some ways, inconsistent. The primary Judge erred by misstating some matters of principle The primary Judge erred in misconstruing parts of the Planning Scheme In its application, Bunnings argued that leave ought to be granted because of the following errors of law by the primary Judge in Bunnings Group Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Ors QPEC 42 ( P&E Court Decision): The P&E Court held that each development proposed by Bunnings was in conflict with the now superseded Maroochy Plan 2000 ( Planning Scheme), and that there were, under section 326(1)(b) of the SPA, insufficient grounds to justify an approval of either development proposal, notwithstanding the conflicts with the Planning Scheme. The proceedings in the P&E Court commenced before the commencement of the Planning Act 2016, and therefore the now repealed Sustainable Planning Act 2009 ( SPA) applied. The case of Bunnings Group Limited v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Ors QCA 252 concerned two applications for leave, brought under section 63 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 ( P&E Court Act), to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland ( Court of Appeal) against the decision of the Planning and Environment Court ( P&E Court) to dismiss the appeal by Bunnings Group Limited ( Bunnings) against the decision of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council to refuse to issue a development permit for a material change of use of premises to establish a Bunnings Warehouse at Coolum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |