Conflicts and sufficient grounds presentation

15 July 2016

CONFLICTS AND SUFFICIENT GROUNDS

A joint presentation by Corrs Chambers Westgarth and Buckley Vann

2CONFLICT AND SUFFICIENT GROUNDS

1. Overview

2. What is a conflict

3. What are sufficient grounds

4. Interactive worked examples

5 July 2016

WHAT WE WILL COVER

33

OVERVIEW

CONFLICT AND SUFFICIENT GROUNDS 5 July 2016

4

WHEN DOES CONFLICT BECOME RELEVANT? WHEN DO SUFFICIENT GROUNDS BECOME RELEVANT?• Section 326 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – ‘other decision rules’

(1) The assessment manager’s decision must not conflict with a relevant instrument unless:

a) The conflict is necessary to ensure the decision complies with a SPRP;b) There are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict; orc) The conflict arises because of a conflict between:

(i) 2 or more relevant instruments of the same type, and the decision best achieves the purposes of the instrument; or(ii) 2 or more aspects of any 1 relevant instrument, and the decision best achieves

the purposes of the instrument.

• A relevant instrument for the purposes of code assessment is all of the things identified in section 313(2) of the SPA against which assessment must be carried out against (aside from any SPRP). Here it includes the applicable codes (ie not the Strategic Framework);

• A relevant instrument for the purposes of impact assessment is all of the things identified in section 314(2) of the SPA against which assessment must be carried out against (aside from any SPRP). Here – it includes the whole of the planning scheme.



The SPA contains a definition for ‘grounds’ for the purposes of section 326(1)(b) as follows:

1. Grounds means matters of public interest;

2. Grounds does not include the personal circumstances of an applicant, owner or interested party.

Intentionally wider however than was previously the case under the earlier versions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (i.e. ‘planning grounds’).

5 July 2016

DEFINED TERMS


Section 317 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 states:

(a) In assessing the application, the assessment manager may give the weight it is satisfied is appropriate to a planning instrument, code, law or policy that came into effect after the application was made, but:(i) Before the day the decision stage for the application started; or(ii) If the decision stage is stopped, before the day the decision stage is restarted.

This provision does not accommodate planning studies for example, which the Council may commission during the life of its planning scheme, to consider specific issues for which policy change in the scheme may be agitated.

5 July 2016

ONE OTHER IMPORTANT ASSESSMENT RULE

77

WHAT IS A CONFLICT?



WHAT IS A CONFLICT?

• To be ‘at variance or disagree with’ and must be plainly identified

• A sliding scale – minor through to major– where the scheme gives strong emphasis and direct statements, more likelihood of

major conflict – conversely, where it merely expresses a preference conflict may be more minor– cutting across policy versus technical conflict

5 July 2016

9

DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A CONFLICT IS NOT STRAIGHTFORWARD BECAUSE….

• The plan is both strategic and regulatory

• The plan is big and complex, and tries to balance competing objectives

• It’s performance based

• Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case


10

READING THE SCHEME AS A WHOLE

• To construe meaning, look at the scheme as a whole

• Careful and balanced reading of provisions - not unduly pedantic

• Construe a planning scheme in a way that best achieves its purpose

• Identify provisions that work against the proposal and those that support



Facts

• Proposal for 65 units over 9 storeys in Oxlade Street, New Farm (plot ratio 3.75)

• Development in the locality predominantly low to medium rise residential with some higher rise residential development

• Made under City Plan 2000, but City Plan 2014 took effect during the course of the application

• Under both the City Plan 2000 and the City Plan 2014 – the site is included in the medium density residential area (MDRA), and the medium density living precinct under the New Farm and Teneriffe Hill Local Plan

5 July 2016

VG PROJECTS PTY LTD V BCC [2016] QPEC 15

12

City Plan 2000:• Intent of the MDRA is to accommodate ‘single unit dwellings and

multi-unit development up to 5 storeys’, and ‘development will have a maximum GFA of 80% of the site area’

• DEO’s of the MDRA suggests these environments will ‘predominantly comprise medium rise, medium density residential buildings of no more than 5 storeys’, and residential developments which are ‘well designed and sensitive to the climate and take advantage of attractive views and aspects…’

• The intent of the High Density Residential Area states (inter alia) that ‘development will be to a maximum plot ratio of 1.5. Development will be no higher than 10 storeys and will address the street’.

• The Court said that ‘at 9 storeys however, it is much taller than is contemplated in the MDRA Intent. It also has a plot ratio that is significantly greater than is referenced in the Intent provisions of both the MDRA and the HDRA’, but that this is not necessarily fatal – given there’s reference to the word ‘predominantly’ and further, that the ‘statements of Intent must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the planning scheme, to see what scope exists for development, on a particular site, which exceeds the height and plot ratio referenced in the Intent’.


• Court looked at the Codes:

– Purpose of the medium density code included statements about development being ‘up to 5 storeys in height’

– PC’s and AS’s considered

– Local Plan’s desired outcomes included ‘the built form promotes comfort and is of a human scale’, and a principle was ‘development should be compatible with, and appropriate to, its physical, historical and cultural setting’

– Local Plan contained an AS stating ‘building height is no more than 5 storeys’ (where the corresponding PC talked about ‘maintaining a visual relationship with other buildings in the vicinity’), and an AS stating ‘GFA does not exceed the area of the site’ (where the corresponding PC talked about ‘building size and bulk must be consistent with the medium density nature of the locality and retain an appropriate residential scale and relationship with other precincts in the area’) – to which the Court said: “departure from an AS does not, of itself, establish conflict with the corresponding PC”

– However here, the corresponding PC’s did not give encouragement to the vicinity/locality transitioning to a high rise/high density living environment


13

VG PROJECTS PTY LTD V BCC [2016] QPEC 15• The points of conflict in terms of City Plan 2000:

– On the evidence, the Court was not satisfied the proposal would achieve a pleasing, sympathetic, supportive, harmonious or complementary relationship with the other buildings in the vicinity, given:• The evidence showed the buildings in the vicinity were typically low to medium rise (cf the

proposal which the Court described as clearly ‘high rise, high density’);• To the extent the proposal would respond to an existing pattern:

• It would do so by extending the pattern since there were no buildings >6 storeys between the Merthyr Bowls Club and 102 Oxlade Drive; and

• The taller buildings (especially 102 Oxlade (9 storeys), Kirribilli (11 storeys) and Glenfalloch (15 storeys)) were historical – they predated a shift in planning strategy to that embodied in City Plan 2000. The tallest building approved in the vicinity since City Plan 2000 was the Platinum Apartments, which stepped from 5 – 7 storeys in height (with the 7 storey part being adjacent to Glenfalloch).

– The Court was satisfied the proposal was inconsistent with the medium density nature of the locality.

– Of City Plan 2000 – the Court was satisfied the proposal conflicted with planning principle 2.2.3, particularly desired outcome 2 and principle 4 and with P1 and P2 of the Local Plan.


14

• City Plan 2014:• Overall outcomes in the zone code included ‘development

comprises medium rise, medium-high density residential buildings of predominantly apartment style multiple dwellings, 3 to 5 storeys in height’ (as well as statements about development responding to the nature of adjoining dwellings, and local characteristics etc) – to which the Court said the proposal did ‘not sit comfortably with’.

• Overall outcomes in the Multiple Dwelling Code also require ‘development has a bulk, scale and form and intensity that integrates with the existing and intended neighbourhood structure for the area….and is consistent with….the location and street context’ and that ‘development is of a height that is appropriate to the strategic and local context and meets community expectations consistent with the following….5 storeys in the Medium Density Residential zone’ – to which the Court said the proposal well exceeds 5 storeys, which is treated as the reasonable expectation in the zone (and that the proposal does not integrate with the existing and intended neighbourhood scheme for the area).

• In terms of the Neighbourhood Plan – the overall outcomes included:

“(m) Development is of a height, scale and form which is consistent with the amenity and character, community expectations and infrastructure assumptions intended for the relevant precinct, sub-precinct or site and is only developed at a greater height, scale and form where there is both a community need and an economic need for the development”. The Court said it did not consider the proposal to be of a height and scale consistent with amenity and character or community expectations.


- The overall outcomes for the precinct within which the site was located, stated: “This precinct is predominantly medium density, taking advantage of the benefits of high levels of accessibility and visual amenity that characterise this area”. (The Court observed of this wording – that it gave no particular encouragement to a higher density).

- A01 of the Neighbourhood Plan code required compliance with the number of storeys and building height in a table (which was offended here). Its corresponding PO, in terms of height, required (in amongst other things) for the height to be ‘aligned with community expectations about the number of storeys to be built’. The Court said of this that per the planning scheme provisions – there was consistent support of an expectation of development to 5 storeys on the land, although – it must be accepted that there is at least the possibility of consideration of a proposal for something greater since:

- The table which was called up and set the heights, was only called up in PO1 and PO7 of the Neighbourhood Plan code; and

- Elsewhere in the Neighbourhood Plan code, it contemplates development of a greater height, scale and form where there is a community and economic need.


15

FRIEND V BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL [2013] QPEC 77• Facts

– Council approved a development permit for a multi-unit dwelling, short-term accommodation, hotel and centre activities (shop, office, restaurant), and a development permit for reconfiguration (18 lots into 2) over a large site in Woolloongabba (with road frontage to Stanley Street, and including the locally listed heritage place – the Chalk Hotel)

– It was to comprise three towers, each containing a mix of residential (short and long term) uses. Tower 1 = 20 storeys; Tower 2 = 18 storeys; Tower 3 = 12 storeys.

– Plot ratio 3.7 (Site area is 8,635m2)– Included in the Multi-Purpose Centre (MP2) (Major Centre) designation in the City

Plan 2000 although a part of the site, being that inclusive of the Chalk Hotel, was MP3 – Suburban Centre. Part of the Urban Footprint under the Regional Plan. Residential Neighbourhood designation at the strategic plan level in City Plan 2000.

– Part of the Ipswich Road and Stanley Street Corridor Precinct under the Woolloongabba Centre Neighbourhood Plan


16

• Primary code under the City Plan 2000 was the Woolloongabba Centre Neighbourhood Plan Code

• Here – whilst the application was impact assessable – there was an anomaly in terms of whether it was otherwise considered ‘generally appropriate’ or ‘generally inappropriate’ in the scheme itself

• The Stanley Street and Ipswich Road Precinct provisions stated an intent for 6 – 8 storey development (but also envisaged a sliding scale of development intensity under which larger lot sizes could take advantage of greater yields) in the following terms:

“to ensure maximum building efficiency and minimum impact on adjoining housing, development intensity will be determined on the basis of a sliding scale under which larger lot sites are able to take advantage of greater yields. Maximum building heights of six and eight storeys are proposed throughout the area depending on the site area”.

• AS4.1 required the maximum GFA to comply with the table on maximum GFAs, while AS4.2 stated that the maximum building height was to comply with table 2, or a nominated map A – whichever was less. The corresponding PC stated “development must be of a height and scale that signifies the core and establishes clearly defined corridors and is appropriate to the role of the Woolloongabba area in the Citywide context”.


FRIEND V BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL [2013] QPEC 77

17

• Points of conflict:– Towers 1 and 2 did not satisfy A4.2 due to the towers exceeding the specified caps in the table/map– AS17.1 called for development to be in accordance with Map B – Woolloongabba Centre

Streetscape Requirements and Public Realm Improvements (which, for the site to a ‘proposed vehicular linkage’ through the middle of the site). The Court acknowledged that where the proposal was providing a pedestrian link, which would not serve a traffic benefit – there is ‘some minor conflict with the Code’

– Ultimately, the Court determined that it was satisfied that ‘no plain conflict with the Planning Scheme can be identified, apart from a highly technical and minor conflict with the Neighbourhood Planning Code.’ The conflict is of such a minor nature as to be irrelevant.



18

POWELL V TOOWOOMBA REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] QPEC 20• Facts:

– The development was for a material change of use for food outlet (café/restaurant), food outlet (convenience restaurant) and supermarket (in real terms a drive-through McDonalds and potentially a KFC);

– The site is located at the corner of Herries Street and Cohoe Street (being a major intersection/State controlled road, also forming part of the Warrego Highway);

– At the time the application was made – the Toowoomba Planning Scheme 2003 was in effect, and included the site within the Mixed Housing zone;

– Three days after the application was made, the Toowoomba Regional Planning Scheme 2012 came into effect, and included the site within the Residential Choice Zone – Urban Residential Precinct;

– Under both schemes, the development was impact assessable, and prima facie inconsistent with the intent of the Residential Choice Zone.

– The surrounding land is predominantly residential comprising detached houses (although in the wider vicinity – there’s a mix of uses being various forms of residential, community uses, offices and non-residential uses including a service station).


19

POWELL V TOOWOOMBA REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] QPEC 20• Planning provisions:

– Under the 2003 Scheme – conflicts alleged in terms of DEO’s, the intent of the Mixed Housing Zone, and the development being ‘not preferred’ in the assessment table. Allegations of non-compliance with AS’s in other codes:• Centre Strategy: 2.2.1(4) referred to additional floor space and ‘extensions’ to centres, rather than new ones;

2.2.1(8) referred to the clustering of non-residential uses into community notes, rather than dispersing them throughout residential areas• DEO 2 – 2.3.1 – directed non-residential uses to the centres, and to providing adequate and convenient access to

centres• DEO 4 – 2.5.1(6) – encouraged reduction in private motor vehicle use and increase in (amongst other things) walking by

the clustering of non-residential uses• Mixed Housing Zone Intent: the establishment of commercial uses only where….in a new building … which exhibits

characteristics typical of, and is compatible with, low density residential development

The 2003 Scheme expressed a strong preference against the location of non-residential uses in the Mixed Housing Zone – although the location of such uses (provided they are by way of an extension to an existing centre, rather than as a new one) in the zone is possible where a need for additional floor space to serve the community can be demonstrated, the existing centres do not, and cannot satisfy the need, and the economic viability of any existing centre is not adversely affected.

– Under this scheme – the Court was satisfied there was a prima facie conflict in respect of the location of the retail facility in this one (given it was not an extension to an existing centre).

– Categorised only as a minor conflict.– Sufficiency of grounds triggered.


20

POWELL V TOOWOOMBA REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] QPEC 20• Planning provisions:• Under the 2012 Scheme – conflicts alleged with respect to the Strategic Framework, Strategic Outcome (out of centre land use),

inconsistent use for the zone. Allegations of conflict with the overall outcomes and acceptable outcomes of the Centre’s Activities Code and issues with the parking code:– Strategic Framework: ‘new direction’ incorporating three key outcomes including an increase in residential densities, the

creation of greater diversity of housing, and the creation of neighbourhoods where residents can walk/cycle to work, shops, schools and services, and parks.

– 3.8.3.1 – SO5: seeks to avoid detriment to the viability of existing activity centres;– 6.2.2 – Residential Choice Zone Code – refers to small scale services and facilities that cater for local residents, and non-

residential uses where they directly support the day-to-day needs of the immediate residential community, do not affect the viability of other centres, have direct access to a sub-arterial road and have buildings consistent with the surrounding residential area and all carparking is on-site and includes a shop;

– Centre Activities Code – guides the development of uses, relevantly food and drink outlets and shops, to manage business activities to ensure adverse impacts on surrounding areas are appropriately managed. PO25 requires no unreasonable affect on the amenity of the locality. A025.1 restricts the hours of operation of the business.

• The Court was satisfied here that the proposed development fits with the new direction and the key outcomes – because, in reality – the development was a small ‘cluster’ retail centre. It held no conflict with the 2012 Scheme


21

K PAGE MAIN BEACH PTY LTD V GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL & ORS [2011] QPEC 1

• Facts and Planning Provisions:– Proposed high rise (8 storey) apartment building on a vacant beachfront allotment on Main Beach.

– Residential Choice Domain sought to achieve a range of housing choice, and support a pattern of residential development comprising mixed dwelling types (including apartment buildings) that relate well to each other and achieve a high standard of residential amenity. So the use was consistent with the intent – but the controversy arose in terms of the height, bulk and scale.

– Height because it was in excess of a Building Height Overlay Map which showed 3 storeys for this site.

– However – the exceedance of the overlay map meant that the development went from being code to impact assessable development. Whilst the overlay map and maximum building height was otherwise referenced in the Residential/Tourism Pacific Land Use Theme, and in an applicable Acceptable Solution – the Court noted that:

“A proposed building which exceeds the acceptable solution as substantially as this one does would ordinarily attract somewhat closer scrutiny than one which exceeded the designation to only a minor extent, but ultimately the test is not whether the proposal approximates the acceptable solution, but rather whether it meets the performance criterion. The performance criterion, in relation to height, is not specifically related to whether the proposal is of a low rise appearance or is within any particular margin of tolerance over the designated height on the overlay map”.

(Rather, the PC concerned whether the building would be of a height in keeping with the predominant residential character of the surrounding area, and whether the height of the building would result in a significant loss of residential amenity).

– The Court found that the designation on the overlay map ought not to be given determinative weight – and as a matter of fact – the proposal here was in keeping with the predominant residential character of the surrounding area.


22

RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING CONFLICT• Includes:

– existing development in the surrounding area;– the Council’s approach to decision making in relation to the current planning strategy.

5 July 2016 CONFLICT AND SUFFICIENT GROUNDS

2323

WHAT ARE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS?


24

IDENTIFYING GROUNDS

• A matter of public interest, not personal circumstances

• Need – economic, community, planning need (not the same as demand)

• Errors in the planning scheme

• Planning scheme overtaken by events

• Various positive outcomes – social, economic or environmental

• Watch for deliberate shifts in policy, consciously rolled over material (which may still have remained unchanged), and other material that has been rolled over with no immediate thought or intent to revisit.


25

GROUNDS OR NOT?

• The absence of impact

• Precedence (previous approvals may help to show scheme has been overtaken)

• Things the planning scheme asks for anyway

• Things that a compliant development could achieve


26

THE WEIGHTMAN TEST

How to determine if sufficient grounds to justify the approval:

1. Examine the nature and extent of the conflict (is it major or minor?)

2. Determine if any grounds relevant to the part of the application in conflict

3. Determine if the grounds in are, on the whole or on balance, sufficient to justify approving the application despite the conflict

(Weightman vs GCCC (2003) 2 Qd R 441)


27

ARE THE GROUNDS SUFFICIENT?

• The word “sufficient” refers to the weight afforded to the ground(s)

conflict = grounds



• Grounds agitated included:– That the development proposal would maintain and enhance the rhythm of development in the area which saw spacing

between low rise and higher rise development of generally 130m;– That the development would achieve a pleasing, sympathetic, supportive, harmonious, or complementary relationship with the

buildings when the vicinity as a whole is considered;– The development would features a combination of balconies, recesses and variations;– The proposal would engage with passers-by via the consolidation of three driveway crossings, the location of the main

gatehouse near the centre of the property frontage, and the retention of large existing street trees bolstered with additional planting;

– Both schemes had been overtaken by events (namely the approval and development of other buildings in excess of 5 storeys);

– The subject site sits in an elongated ‘finger’ of MDR zoned land such that it should be expected that development on this side of Oxlade Drive will differ in form from that on the northern side which is zoned LMDR;

– The site is located within a stretch of the river where there are already a number of similarly tall buildings;– The site is not affected by the character overlay (cf. the other side of Oxlade Drive) – meaning a different built form on this

side should be expected;– The site is uniquely large – meaning the development mix in terms of unit size can be greater, and the proposal therefore is

relatively unique (and satisfies the drive for a diversity of housing choice);– The usual suspects in terms of unacceptable impacts (e.g. traffic, noise, overlooking, privacy etc) are not of concern here, and

the development does not give rise to any unacceptable negative impacts on its neighbours or the streetscape or locality;– There are efficiencies associated with multi-unit developments in this location – in terms of achieving a compact form of

settlement and maximising the efficient use of infrastructure. The site is a good infill site.

5 July 2016



• Grounds agitated included:– The fulfilment of the broad range of identified objectives of the SEQRP and the City Plan;– A strong need for the proposal (supported by evidence by Jon Norling – note there was no

counterpart expert retained by the Appellant);– The revitalisation of the heritage Chalk Hotel;– The activation of ground floor frontages and the enhancement of the local streetscape associated

with the mixed use development;– The positive contribution to the locality associated with the cross-block pedestrian linkages and the

pedestrian spaces proposed.

5 July 2016


30

POWELL V TOOWOOMBA REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] QPEC 20• Grounds agitated included:

– Need (in a holistic and conventional planning context);– A preferred use for the site by reason of its proximity to the highway;– The provision of an employment opportunity;– The character of the adjoining non-residential facilities; and– The absence of impact on the economic viability of any existing centre.



RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING SUFFICIENT GROUNDS

5 July 2016

3232

INTERACTIVE EXAMPLES


33

EXAMPLE: LATE NIGHT BUSINESS IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE3.4.5.1(6) Commercial operating hours in neighbourhood centres generally cease by 10pm to limit potential social and amenity impacts arising from these uses to

nearby residents

Scenario 1: Seven Eleven and social impact and acoustics report demonstrates no impacts

Scenario 2: Restaurant with live music and licence to 1am

• Conflict?

• Grounds?


34

EXAMPLE: MAJOR USE IN LDR

3.3.3.1 (9) Uses that compromise the amenity of suburban neighbourhoods, including service stations, short-term holiday accommodation, hotels or medium-to-

large-scale places of worship are not established.

Scenario 1: Service station re-establishing on former service station site, adjoining a centre

Scenario 2: Service station on a house site

• Conflict?

• Grounds?


35

EXAMPLE: MULTIPLE DWELLING IN LDR3.3.3.1 (5) Low intensity, low-rise small lot housing, dual occupancy and multiple dwellings occur in

suburban neighbourhoods in low concentrations where they achieve a dispersed or gentle-scattering effect. These dwellings are limited to the following lots where they do not adjoin existing

or approved small lot housing, dual occupancy or multiple dwellings:

a) corner lots; or

b) lots with both street and rear lane access; or

c) lots within a 400 metre walk of a mixed use centre or specialist centre.

Scenario 1: Multiple dwelling meeting (a) and (c) but adjoining an existing multiple dwelling

Scenario 2: Stand alone multiple dwelling not meeting (a), (b) or (c)

• Conflict?

• Grounds?


36

HEIGHT EXAMPLE 1

• Multiple Dwelling proposed in the Urban Neighbourhood (specifically the Medium Density Residential Zone);

• Its going to be 10 storeys;

• The Building Height Overlay Map notes that the subject site is affected by a 4 storey height limit;

• The building will be of significant architectural merit, and is surrounded by older but comparable development in terms of height (7-9 storeys at their greatest, with smatterings of smaller and single level development intermixed). It will have a clearly defined podium with significant ‘green’ elements (i.e. in terms of green walls and landscaping).


37

HEIGHT EXAMPLE 1• The Medium Density Residential Zone Code provides (in amongst other things) in terms of building height:

– Land uses do not detract from the residential amenity of the area (6.2.2.2(2)(a)(vii))

– Housing is provided at a form, scale and intensity that is appropriate for the zone and each particular locality it is in where the various outcomes are satisfied, including:

• (v) whether intended outcomes for building form/city form and desirable building height patterns are negatively impacted, including the likelihood of undesirable local development patterns to arise if the cumulative effects of the development are considered;

• (vi) retention of important elements of neighbourhood character and amenity, and cultural heritage;

• (vii) whether adjoining residential amenity is unreasonably impacted;

• (viii) achievement of a high quality urban design.

– Character consists of (i) urban neighbourhoods that vary from pockets of detached housing on smaller lots to medium or higher intensity places containing medium-rise buildings; and (ii) well serviced and compact urban neighbourhoods that offer a level of amenity appropriate to the intensity of the area (6.2.2.2(2)(c));

– Built form (6.2.2.2(2)(d)):

(i) Has a building height that does not exceed that indicated on the Building height overlay map;

(ii) Contributes to a transitioning density from lower intensity areas to higher intensity areas near centres, the high rise coastal spine and areas well serviced by public transport;

(iii) Is setback from road frontages to promote an urban setting and interface with the street;

(iv) Is setback from side and rear boundaries to protect the amenity of adjoining residences; and

(v) Has varying site cover to reduce building dominance and provide areas for landscaping.

– In terms of POs and AOs – PO3 states ‘building height and structure height does not exceed that shown in the BHOM’ or ‘where not identified in the overlay map, building height and structure height does not exceed 2 storeys with a maximum of 9m or a partial third storey if within 9m’.


38

HEIGHT EXAMPLE 1

• The Strategic Framework provides:– 3.3.2.1(8): The BHOM shows the building height pattern and desired future appearance for local areas within urban neighbourhoods.

– 3.3.2.1(9): Increases in building height up to a maximum of 50% above the BHOM may occur in limited circumstances in urban neighbourhoods where all of the following outcomes are satisfied:

(a) A reinforced local identity and sence of place;

(b) A well-managed interface with, relationship to and impact on nearby development, including the reasonable amenity expectations of nearby residents;

(c) A varied, ordered and interesting local skyline;

(d) An excellent standard of appearance of the built form and street edge;

(e) Housing choice and affordability;

(f) Protection for important elements of local character or scenic amenity, including views from popular public outlooks to the city’s significant natural features;

(g) Deliberate and distinct built form contrast in locations where building heights change abruptly on the BHOM; and

(h) The safe, secure and efficient functioning of the Gold Coast Airport or other aeronautical facilities.– 3.3.2.1(10): increases in building height beyond 50% above the BHOM are not anticipated in urban neighbourhoods

Note: no criteria have been identified for building heights which are more than 50% above the BHOM, because such increases are in conflict with City Plan.


39

HEIGHT EXAMPLE 1

• Conflict with the City Plan or not?

• What is the extent of the conflict?

• If there is a conflict, what sort of grounds could be run here?


40

HEIGHT EXAMPLE 2

• Same scenario but instead of a 10 storey development in a BHOM area of 4 storeys, its for a 8 storey development.

• What is the extent of the conflict?

• If there is a conflict, what sort of grounds could be run here?– Would things change you view if there was an existing development approval applying

with respect to the site which had not been actioned but had not yet lapsed for 8 storeys – but with a lesser quality design?

– What about if the proposal is for a development 50% over the BHOM in the same area, with the same principles – but the proposal is not of architectural significance, and it doesn’t satisfy all of the elements of section 3.3.2.1(9) of the Strategic Framework?


4141

QUESTIONS?


Government & Nonprofit

Conflicts and sufficient grounds presentation