PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Body Corporate for Mayfair Residences Community Titles Scheme 31233 v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2017] QPEC 22 PARTIES: BODY CORPORATE FOR MAYFAIR RESIDENCES COMMUNITY TITLES SCHEME 31233 (appellant) v BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (respondent) and THE TRUSTEE FOR THE ATHOL PLACE PROPERTY TRUST (co-respondent) FILE NO/S: 3467 of 2016 DIVISION: Planning and Environment Court PROCEEDING: Planning and Environment Appeal ORIGINATING COURT: Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 26 April 2017 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23, 24 and 28, 29, 31 March 2017 and 5 April 2017 JUDGE: Kefford DCJ ORDER: The appeal will, in due course, be dismissed. I will adjourn the further hearing to allow for the formulation of conditions. CATCHWORDS: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – appeal against approval of a development application for material change of use – proposed development for re-use of heritage place, office, health care services and food and drink outlet – whether there is conflict occasioned by bulk and scale – whether there is conflict with the planning intent for the Petrie Terrace and Spring Hill Neighbourhood Plan area - whether there will be unacceptable amenity and character impacts – whether cultural heritage significance is protected - whether there are sufficient grounds to approve the proposed development despite conflict with the planning scheme – whether there is a need for the proposed development 2 Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), s 314, s 324, s 326, s 462, s 493, s 495 Acland Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Rosalie Shire Council [2008] QPELR 342; [2007] QPEC 112, approved Arksmead Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast [1999] QPELR 322, cited All-A-Wah Carapark Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council [1989] QPELR 155, cited Body Corporate for Kelly’s Beach Resort v Burnett Shire Council & Ors [2003] QPELR 614, approved Caltabiano & Ors v Brisbane City Council [2005] QPELR 60; [2004] QPEC 36, approved K Page Main Beach v Gold Coast City Council [2011] QPELR 406; [2011] QPEC 1, approved Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd (2011) 185 LGERA 63; [2012] QPELR 354; [2011] QCA 358, applied Newman & Ors v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2011] QPEC 87; [2011] QPELR 786, approved Parmac Investments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2008] QPELR 480; [2008] QPEC 7, approved Quintenon Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 64, approved Wattlevilla Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2015] QPELR 21; [2014] QPEC 047, approved Weightman v Gold Coast City Council [2003] 2 QdR 441; (2002) 121 LGERA 161; [2003] QPELR 43; [2002] QCA 234, applied Woolworths Ltd v Maryborough City Council (No 2) [2006] 1 QdR 273; [2005] QCA 262, applied Zappala Family Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors (2014) 201 LGERA 82; [2014] QPELR 686; [2014] QCA 147, applied COUNSEL: M J Batty for the appellant J G Lyons for the respondent C L Hughes QC and N Loos for the co-respondent SOLICITORS: Thynne Macartney for the appellant Brisbane City Legal Practice for the respondent Holding Redlich for the co-respondent 3 Table of contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 The subject site ..................................................................................................................... 4 The locality ........................................................................................................................... 4 The proposal ......................................................................................................................... 6 The decision framework ....................................................................................................... 7 The issues ............................................................................................................................. 8 City Plan 2014 ...................................................................................................................... 9 Petrie Terrace and Spring Hill Neighbourhood Plan ...................................................... 10 Built form: height, bulk, scale, setbacks, transitions and separations ................................ 14 Planning intent .................................................................................................................... 24 Architectural, character and heritage impacts .................................................................... 34 Impact of the extinguishment of the residential land use on the heritage values ........... 37 Impact of the built form on the heritage and character significance of Athol Place ...... 41 Amenity and landscaping and reasonable expectations ..................................................... 45 Need .................................................................................................................................... 50 Grounds .............................................................................................................................. 53 Need ................................................................................................................................ 54 Other matters of merit ..................................................................................................... 59 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 60 Introduction [1] This appeal is against the decision of the respondent, Brisbane City Council (“Council”) to approve the co-respondent’s development application to facilitate a partial demolition and adaptive reuse of a two storey heritage building, together with the development of a new eight storey commercial office building at 307 Wickham Terrace, Spring Hill. [2] Mayfair Residences is a 12 storey residential building located opposite the subject site. The appellant is the body corporate for Mayfair Residences, which opposes the development of an eight storey commercial building on the subject site. 4 The subject site [3] The subject site has an area of 840 square metres. It has street frontages of approximately 16 metres to Wickham Terrace on its southern boundary, 51 metres to Birley Street on its eastern boundary and 16 metres to Penton Lane on its northern boundary.1 [4] The subject site slopes down from a high point on Wickham Terrace (at about RL45.9m) to the rear boundary at Penton Lane (at about RL41.0m). The fall between Wickham Terrace and Penton Lane is the equivalent of about two storeys.2 [5] The subject site contains a two storey Georgian-style terrace house known as Athol Place, which is located on the Wickham Terrace frontage of the site. Athol Place is identified as both a State and a local heritage place.3 [6] Athol Place is currently used for medical consulting rooms on the ground floor (accommodating two to three doctors) and three residential flats on the upper levels (although only one is presently occupied).4 The locality [7] Wickham Terrace represents the southern edge of the suburb of Spring Hill. As the joint report of the town planners noted, and with which the visual amenity experts agreed, Spring Hill has an eclectic mix of building types and land use. The eclectic mix is a consequence of, in part, its age (being one of Brisbane’s oldest suburbs), sustained evolution by gentrification, the presence of higher density short term accommodation and residential developments and being the home of many health, government and educational institutions.5 [8] The topography of Spring Hill is characterised by a series of ridges, along Wickham Terrace, College Road, Leichardt Street, St Paul’s Terrace and Gregory Terrace, with valleys in between. This undulating topography creates interesting relationships between buildings and contributes to the eclectic nature of the suburb.6 1 Joint Report on Town Planning – Exhibit 5 p 2 [3] and [4]. 2 Joint Report on Town Planning – Exhibit 5 p 2 [5]. 3 Joint Report on Town Planning – Exhibit 5 p 2 [7]. 4 Joint Report on Visual Amenity – Exhibit 4 p 1 [2.5]. 5 Joint Report on Town Planning – Exhibit 5 p 2 [8]; Worroll T2-33/L34 – T2-34/L9; Peabody T2- 76/L29-36. 6 Joint Report on Town Planning – Exhibit 5 p 2 [9]. 5 [9] To the west of the subject site, at 309 Wickham Terrace, is a four storey multi-unit residential building. It presents as three storeys at Wickham Terrace with a partial fourth storey apparent from Penton Lane.7 [10] Further to the west along Wickham Terrace is SOHO Brisbane, a five storey short- term accommodation building, and Hotel Urban, a 15 storey short-term accommodation and mixed use building that reads as 13 storeys from Wickham Terrace but 15 storeys from Penton Lane. Hotel Urban is an unusually shaped building on a curved north-east/south-west axis that extends (via its multi-level parking) through to Lilley Street at the rear. It touches Penton Lane about half way along its length, at which point it has an additional access.8 [11] To the north of the subject site, across Penton Lane, is 87 Birley Street, which is improved by a two storey dwelling house constructed prior to 1946. The dwelling house has frontage to both Birley Street and Penton Lane, but is orientated east west with minimal outlook towards the subject site.9 [12] Penton Lane has a service nature in that it provides access to car parking at the rear of 309 Wickham Terrace, SOHO Brisbane and Hotel Urban.10 [13] To the immediate east, across Birley Street, is 281-287 Wickham