[2014] QPEC 7

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE RACKEMANN

P & E Appeal No 5003 of 2012

PHOENIX POWER RECYCLERS 
PROPRIETARY LIMITED				Appellant 

and

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL			Respondent 

BRISBANE

9.57 AM, WEDNESDAY, 12 MARCH 2014

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: 

	 Planning and Environment – where applicant sought to rely upon amended plan for the purposes of the appeal – where applicant operates a composting and bulk garden supply operation – where applicant sought to change the location of certain components within the proposal and increasing the amount of certain categories of waste – whether the proposed change is a minor change	
		
SOLICITORS:	Appellant:  M Connor (Connor O’Meara)
Respondent:  D Skerrett (Norton Rose Fulbright)	

HIS HONOUR:   This is an application for the applicant to be able to rely on an amended plan for the purposes of the appeal . The question is whether it is a minor change within the meaning of the statute.  

The appellant currently operates a composting and bulk garden supply operation on land at Yatala.  On the 17th of December 2009 the appellant made a development application to seek approval for making a material change of use to, in effect, modify and expand the existing operations by expanding the importation of green waste to the land, adding a biomass cogeneration plant, adding an advanced waste treatment facility and advanced waste transfer facility, the expansion of the existing storage and treatment of waste oil, the storage of hazardous/dangerous goods for on sight use a reprocessing and adding a series of ERAs, authorising electricity generation, crushing, milling, grinding or screening, composting or soil condition manufacturing, regulated waste recycling or reprocessing, regulated waste storage, regulated waste treatment, waste transfer station operations.  The development also sought approval for some operational works.  

Those opposed to the development made submissions and the application was subsequently refused.  Following discussions about the issues the applicant wishes to make some changes so as to improve the likely performance of the proposal in amenity terms and to permit negotiations to continue towards a possible settlement.  

The land is bounded to the east by Sandy Creek Road, to the south by industrial development and to the west by a vegetated area.  Objections largely came from a residential area further west again.  I have been taken to the submissions which raise a number of issues with respect to the proposal.  

The changes now sought to be made may be summarised as changing the location of certain components within the proposal and increasing the amount of certain categories of waste that can be dealt with.  

Despite the proposal to increase the amount of waste to be dealt with the material shows that the amenity impact would be less than for the original plan. Insofar as the composting is concerned it is now proposed to place some of that composting area within a building and insofar as other waste is concerned it is proposed now to carry out sealing within the subject site, so as to reduce any potential for dust and the like which might otherwise have been generated.  I accept the evidence before me about that.  

Insofar as the increase in the amount of product to be dealt with and the corresponding increase in traffic movements, the evidence of the traffic engineer is that the increase is modest  and can well be dealt with by way of imposition of conditions.  

Whilst the amendments might not remove aspects which attracted submissions and whilst those who were opposed to the previous proposal may well also be opposed to the new proposal I do not think that the difference between the two is such as to take it beyond the bounds of a minor change. Accordingly I propose to make orders permitting the appeal to proceed on the basis of the amended plan.  

MR CONNOR:   Can I hand to your Honour a draft order.  

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you.  [indistinct].  Thank you.  You are excused.  

______________________