PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Loncor Properties Pty Ltd v Redland City Council [2017] QPEC 5		
PARTIES:	LONCOR PROPERTIES PTY LTD
(appellant)
v
REDLAND CITY COUNCIL
(respondent)		
FILE NO/S:	4541 of 2015		
PROCEEDING:	Appeal		
DELIVERED ON:	28 February 2017		
DELIVERED AT:	BRISBANE		
HEARING DATE:	25, 26, 27, 31 October 2016		
JUDGE:	Rackemann DCJ		
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.		
CATCHWORDS:	PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – PLANNING SCHEMES AND INSTRUMENTS – application for 43 lot residential subdivision on appropriately zoned land in a structure plan area – acceptability of access – failure of proposal to provide an esplanade road separating greenspace from a proposed new lot – intrusion into greenspace, but for good reason – proposal to provide access via existing cul-de-sacs in an established estate to the east rather await development of planned network to the west – whether proposal fails to maximise connectivity, permeability and ease of mobility – whether proposed access to Whitby Place conflicts with structure plan – whether proposal is consistent with the functional classification of the elements of the road hierarchy – where conflict found – whether sufficient grounds to warrant approval notwithstanding conflict – where adverse amenity impact for existing residents, particularly of Caldwell Close
		
COUNSEL:	Michael A Williamson for the appellant
Benjamin D Job for the respondent		
SOLICITORS:	Collin Biggers & Paisley for the appellant
HopgoodGanim for the respondent		

INTRODUCTION
[1]	This applicant appeal is against the refusal, by the respondent, of an application for a development approval to reconfigure a 3.556 ha site at Thornlands (the site) so as to facilitate a 43 lot residential subdivision in two stages. The site is appropriately zoned and physically suitable for the development. The matters of controversy centre around the acceptability of the proposed access arrangements.
THE LOCALITY
[2]	The site is surrounded to the north, east and south by housing development. The subject site sits generally to the west of an existing residential estate, known as the Rushwood Estate. The proposal is for the intended development to form an extension or completion of that estate.
[3]	The site fronts each of two cul-de-sacs within the Rushwood Estate, namely Whitby Place to the north and Caldwell Close to the east. Whitby Place currently provides access to 21 lots and Caldwell Place to 11 lots. Each of those connects to Carlingford Drive which, in turn, intersects with a major north-south sub-arterial road, Panorama Drive, to the east. The proposal would involve the construction, through the site, of a primary and secondary loop road. The primary loop road would take access from the head of the two existing cul-de-sacs. This would have the effect of creating a circuit connecting Caldwell Close and Whitby Place, such that those would no longer be cul-de-sacs. Traffic associated with the proposed development would feed into the road network in the Rushwood Estate.
[4]	To the west of the site lies vacant land, and, to the southwest, lies a poultry farm, which has become the subject of a contract of sale to a company whose shareholders are well-known developers. It is intended that stage 2 of the proposal would not proceed until the poultry farm use ceases. Further to the west lies Kinross Road. 
[5]	The intent of the planning scheme (described later) is for residential development to occur in the Kinross Road area, (including the subject site) in accordance with a structure plan. That development will be served by yet to be constructed new residential collector roads and access streets to/from Kinross Road, which is a trunk collector. Residential development is occurring in the structure plan area.
[6]	If the applicant’s proposed access arrangements are unacceptable, then development of its land by residential subdivision will be delayed pending development (including new roads) between the subject site and Kinross Road to the west. The applicant would obviously prefer to be able to develop immediately without waiting on access to the west. In short, it wants its development to be the last piece of the Rushwood Estate, rather than the last piece of the future development to the west. The respondent contends that the proposed access is unacceptable and the appellant’s development is premature until the establishment of access to/from the west.
LOCAL OBJECTION
[7]	Although the development application was code assessable, it provoked adverse submissions on behalf of the Rushwood Estate Association Group. The grounds of objection included the likely impacts of increased traffic. Statements of local residents, including most of the residents of Caldwell Close, were admitted into evidence on the hearing of the appeal. It is clear that local residents acknowledge that the subject site will, ultimately, be developed, but object to the conversion of the cul-de-sacs to a loop road extending through the subject site. 
THE ASSESSMENT REGIME
[8]	The development application was code assessable. It fell to be assessed having regard to ss 313(2) and (3) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) (“SPA”) and decided in accordance with ss 324 and 326. Section 326 of SPA provides that an assessment manager’s decision must not conflict with a relevant instrument unless there are sufficient grounds to justify a decision. A relevant instrument means a matter or thing mentioned in s 313(2) of SPA. Section 313(2)(e)(iii) of SPA provides that the development application must be assessed against, inter alia, any applicable codes in a planning scheme.
THE ISSUES
[9]	In its amended grounds of refusal, the council sought to rely upon many provisions of its planning scheme. Upon the hearing of the appeal it relied upon a shorter list of the alleged principal areas of conflict with each of the following applicable codes:
•	Kinross Road Structure Plan Overlay Code;
•	Reconfiguration Code;
•	Urban Residential Zone Code;
•	Infrastructure Works Code;
•	Planning Scheme Policy 9
In the course of submissions however, it was conceded that there was no conflict with the last three of those. Attention therefore focused upon the first two, in order to identify the nature and extent of any conflict. The appellant contends that there are sufficient grounds to approve its development application in the event of, and notwithstanding, conflict.

THE KINROSS ROAD STRUCTURE PLAN 
[10]	The site falls within the Kinross Road Structure Plan Overlay (the structure plan). The structure plan also extends to the Rushwood Estate, although development of that estate pre-dated the structure plan.
[11]	The structure plan has an overlay code with overall outcomes and specific outcomes. The overall outlines are related to four “key characteristics”, being:
(a)	land use precincts;
(b)	movement;
(c)	infrastructure; and
(d)	land use conflict mitigation strategy.
The specific outcomes are also related to those key characteristics.
[12]	Insofar as the relationship between the overall outcomes and the specific outcomes is concerned, the structure plan provides as follows:
(11) Development that is consistent with the Specific Outcomes, in Section 5.15.9 complies with the Kinross Road Structure Plan Overlay Code. The Overall Outcomes in Section 5.15.8 may be used by an Assessment Manager to approve or refuse a development application which does not satisfy all the Specific Outcomes stated in Section 5.15.9.

(12) The Overall Outcomes in Section 5.15.8 are the purpose of the Kinross Road Structure Plan Overlay Code. In combination, the overall outcomes seek to deliver an integrated, efficient and sustainable urban community while protecting the significant ecological and scenic values of the area, including the Hilliards Creek corridor…”
[13]	 Accordingly:
a.	a proposal which complies with the Specific Outcomes in s 5.15.9 complies with the Structure Plan Code;
b.	it is unnecessary to assess a proposal against the overall Outcomes of the Code where compliance with Specific Outcomes is demonstrated; and
c.	in the event a proposal is inconsistent with one or more Specific Outcomes, 
s 5.15.2(11) provides that, in the exercise of discretion, the Overall Outcomes are relevant to the Assessment Manager’s decision to approve or refuse an application.
[14]	It was submitted for the respondent that, by reason of s 5.15.2(11), conflict with even one specific outcome makes relevant (potentially adversely to a development application) a consideration of all overall outcomes, whether or not those outcomes relate to the same key characteristic to which the specific outcome was directed and whether or not there is any conflict with the (different) specific outcomes which relate to that overall outcome. In this case the respondent sought to rely on overall outcomes which express a concern for amenity although it did not always assert a conflict with a corresponding specific outcome. For example, the respondent placed reliance on overall outcome 5.15.8(2)(d)(i)(a) which relates to the key characteristic of the land use conflict mitigation strategy, even though it did not assert conflict with any specific outcome relating to that characteristic. The nexus between the various overall outcomes and the relevant key characteristic and specific outcomes should not however, be ignored, at least in relation to matters of weight.
[15]	Whilst the structure plan provides the greatest guidance for development in the area to which it relates, the reconfiguration code is also an applicable code. It also features overall outcomes, which are the purpose of the code, and specific outcomes, consistency with which amounts to compliance with the code.
Greenspace 
[16]	Specific Outcomes 1.5(b)(v) and 2.1(4)(j) and (5) of the structure plan are of relevance by reason of a greenspace dedication (7e) which directly adjoins the north western boundary of the site. Specific Outcome 1.5 relates to the land use precincts key characteristic and provides as follows:
“Section 1.5(1) Precinct 4 – Urban Residential Housing is designed and located to 
(b) ensures lot layout and built form:
(v) ensures to the greatest extent practicable that new lots or dwelling units within a community title that directly adjoin any land within the Greenspace precinct are separated by the provision of an esplanade road…”
The corresponding overall outcome for the same key characteristic is in 
s 5.15.8(2)(ii)(d) and relevantly seeks to ensure that no new lots directly adjoin land in the greenspace precinct, but are separated by provision of an esplanade road.

[17]	Specific Outcome 2.1 relates to the movement network key characteristic and provides, relevantly, as follows:
“Section 2.1(4) Access streets and access places are designed and located to:
(j) ensure no new vehicular access is provided to the section of Wrightson Road included within the Greenspace Precinct as depicted on Map 1 – Kinross Road Structure Plan Area – Land Use Precincts
Section 2.1(5) –  Collector, access streets and access places to the greatest extent practicable are provided adjacent to all land included within the Greenspace Precinct and designed to incorporate esplanade treatments, as depicted on Map 2 – Road Movement Network, that – 
a.	achieve a low speed environment for cars, cyclists and pedestrians;
b.	incorporate a shared pedestrian and cycle pathway;
c.	…
d.	ensure no part of the road pavement is constructed within the Greenspace precinct except where road crossings are identified on Map 2 – Road Movement Network”
[18]	The corresponding overall outcome, relating to the same key characteristic, is 
s 5.15.8(2)(b)(i)(j). Relevantly, it seeks to ensure that streets and/or access places are provided, to the greatest extent practicable, adjacent to all land in the Greenspace Precinct. 
[19]	There is, as the appellant concedes, a level of conflict with specific outcome 2.1(4)(j) because part of the proposed new road taking street access from Whitby Place will intrude into the greenspace precinct. As the Respondent acknowledged however, that intrusion is for good reason, namely to pick a gap between existing trees. It is not put as something that would justify refusal of the development application.
[20]	There is also some conflict which arises by reason of the failure of the proposal to provide for an esplanade road, separating the greenspace precinct from the closest lot in the north western part of the site. The road movement network map (Map 2) in the structure plan shows a future access place/access easement, flanked to the north by an esplanade road treatment designation. The future road (and associated esplanade treatment) is only shown as extending from the western boundary of the site to a future residential collector road to the west, although it terminates with an arrowhead at each of those points. It does not follow however, that the road ought not also extend into the subject site to the extent required in order to separate a proposed new lot on the subject site from the greenspace.
[21]	The provision of an esplanade road is not an absolute requirement. The requirement is for the provision of such a road “to the greatest extent practicable”. The evidence however, does not justify a conclusion that it would be impractical to provide such a road, at least in the event that development awaited the provision of road access at that point from the west. As has already been noted, the structure plan envisages a future access place/access easement to the west connecting with the boundary of the subject site at its north-western corner. Mr Williams (the traffic engineer called by the appellant) expressed a concern that an esplanade road might risk connecting that future access place/access easement to Whitby Road (which would be contrary to another provision of the structure plan discussed later), but he also acknowledged that such a risk could be addressed.
[22]	The proposal is in conflict because of its failure to provide an esplanade road separating the greenspace precinct from a proposed new lot. It is however, proposed to dedicate a 10 metre wide strip of land between that proposed lot and the adjoining greenspace. That is to be improved by a shared pedestrian and cycle path. That is not the solution referred to in the structure plan, but it is difficult to resist the appellant’s contention that it will serve the purpose of providing useful separation to the greenspace. The gravity of the conflict is not great. 
Maximising connectivity, permeability and ease of mobility
[23]	The respondent contends that the proposal conflicts with Specific Outcome 1.5(1)(b)(iv) which provides as follows: 
 “s 1.5 (1) Precinct 4 – Urban Residential Housing is designed and located to – 
	(b) ensure a lot layout and built form:
(iv) provides a network of pedestrian and cycle paths and vehicular movement routes that maximise connectivity, permeability and ease of mobility
[24]	The corresponding overall outcome, relating to the same key characteristic, is in 
s 5.15.8(2)(a)(ii)(d) which relevantly seeks a lot layout which:
“provides a network of pedestrian, cycle and vehicular movement routes that maximise connectivity, permeability and ease of mobility”
[25]	The movement network for the structure plan area is shown on Map 2 (for roads) and 3 (for pedestrian/cycleway and public transport). There is no difficulty with the proposal in terms of the pedestrian and cycle paths. Indeed, the proposal would assist in achieving a planned “secondary linkage” along Whitby Place. The issue relates to vehicular movement issues. 
[26]	Whilst the provision seeks to maximise, amongst other things, connectivity and permeability, that should be approached having regard to the fact (as was common ground) that the structure plan contains provisions which, in effect, serve to block what might otherwise have been the east-west movement of vehicles between the road network which connects to Kinross Road to the west and that which connects to Panorama Drive to the east. For example, as is discussed later, it discourages new access between Whitby Place and new residential development to the west.
[27]	Map 2 in the structure plan shows the future western access place/easement already referred to. There was some debate about whether that road is intended to provide access into the site, but even if it is, access places are intended to have only a very limited catchment. Given its description, it could not be said to be intended to be the only vehicle movement route for the traffic generated by development of the subject site. 
[28]	Map 2 does not otherwise specify the vehicular movement routes to/from the development or the subject site. It depicts the existing road network to the east, in the Rushwood Estate, and the future collector road network otherwise. The planned collector road network to the west does not extend to the subject site, but the structure plan contemplates the development of future access streets, in unspecified locations, to link with the collector road network.
[29]	As Mr Beard pointed out in the joint report of the traffic engineers, “the proposal creates a closed loop with no external connections which do not already exist, and the new streets created will, in practice, serve only new residents”. The proposal would not serve to contribute positively to connectivity, permeability and ease of access for the structure plan area generally or existing residents in particular. The focus was therefore on its effect for future residents of development on the subject site.
[30]	The respondent’s contention is that the proposal conflicts with Specific Outcome 1.5(1)(b)(iv) and the corresponding overall outcome because, by using the existing network to the east, instead of awaiting the future network to the west, the proposal fails to “maximise” the things referred to.  The debate, in this respect, came down to the respective merits of the east and west options for future residents of development on the subject site.
[31]	Insofar as trips beyond the Structure Plan area are concerned, depending upon the direction of the destination, the eastern access would be more convenient for some whilst the western access would be more convenient to others.  The appellant’s witnesses emphasised the convenience of the proposed movement route to the east for accessing facilities to the north, whilst the respondent’s pointed out the benefits of the future network to the west for those accessing facilities in Capalaba, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I accept Mr Beard’s evidence that, overall, there are probably more trips for which the western option would be more convenient.
[32]	Insofar as trips within Structure Plan area are concerned, the western option has a distinct advantage.  The Structure Plan envisages a mixed use local centre developing at about the mid-point of Kinross Road, west of the subject land.  It also proposes community facilities adjoining that local centre. The proposal effectively makes no provision for vehicular access to those facilities. The western option would provide a relatively short and direct route.  Further, it would involve use only of the future access street/collector road network within the Structure Plan area. It is obviously preferable for trips by residents to facilities in the structure plan area to be able to be made by using the road network within the structure plan area, rather than being forced out on to the external road network.
[33]	The appellant drew attention to a larger centre which the council has approved to be developed at the corner of Boundary Road and Panorama Drive. That approval is subject to an unresolved appeal to this court. Its future is uncertain. There was an initial attempt to paint the eastern option as being more convenient for access to a centre at that location however, in the course of the evidence, it became clear that the approval contemplates a future road connection to the west, within the structure plan area, access to which would not require travel as far west as Kinross Road.  On that becoming clear, even Mr Williams (the traffic engineer called by the appellant) initially conceded that the eastern option was no more convenient for accessing that proposed development  and ultimately conceded that, as a matter general traffic planning, he would prefer people to use the western access and the collector street system unless a more detailed investigation found there was some reason to depart from that preference.
[34]	Accordingly, the western option has a distinct overall advantage particularly in terms of trips to and from planned local and community facilities within the Structure Plan area. The eastern option would not be severely problematic, but it is, in the circumstances, the inferior option. Its adoption in preference to awaiting the western network results in a degree of conflict by reason of a failure to relevantly “maximise” in the context of a planning document which provides for the future western network option. 
Access to Whitby Place
[35]	Specific Outcome 2.1(4)(k) relevantly provides that access streets are designed and located to:
 “(k) ensure no new vehicle access is provided between Whitby Place and new residential development to the western sub precinct 4a”
[36]	That specific outcome is part of those dealing with the movement network. The overall outcomes relating to that include s 5.15.8(2)(b)(i)(a), which speaks of a network that “provides high levels of legibility, connectivity and permeability for all street users, while ensuring appropriate levels of safety, amenity and protection from the impact of traffic movements”.
[37]	It was submitted that the proposal involves no “new” vehicular access because the subject site already enjoys an access point to Whitby Place which is to be utilised, albeit that it will be constructed in a different form.  The Planning Scheme defines “access” as the entry of persons and vehicles onto a lot, either existing or proposed, from a road which abuts the frontage of that lot.  Presently the subject site has a vehicular access from its frontage to Whitby Place.  That access is in the form of a driveway crossover which, in turn, is defined in the Planning Scheme as “a vehicle driveway extending from the roadway to the property boundary”.  The proposal would do away with the driveway crossover access and replace it with a newly-constructed road extending into the site. That new road would, in turn, provide vehicular access to new lots, the frontages of which would abut that new road.  That, I accept, amounts to a new vehicular access between Whitby Place and the new residential development. 
[38]	It was submitted, on behalf of the respondent, that this specific outcome seeks to prevent Whitby Place from being used in order to facilitate access from new residential development in Precinct 4a.  It was submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that the specific outcome is of more limited effect.  In particular, it only prevents “new” vehicular access and only does so with respect to new residential development which is both in sub Precinct 4a and “west” of Whitby Place.  It was submitted that the proposal neither involves new vehicular access nor an access to the new residential development west of Whitby Place.
[39]	The remaining question is whether the new residential development is properly said to be “to the west”.  The proposal is for access via a loop which extends south from Whitby Place and then east to Caldwell Close, providing access to residential development on the subject site which does not extend beyond the western extremity of Whitby Place in its current form.
[40]	It was submitted, on behalf of the respondent, that the drafting “leaves a little bit to be desired” and results in some ambiguity but that the provision should be construed as setting its face against the subject proposal.  It was submitted that, “broadly construed” the provision simply refers to new residential development in any part of Precinct 4a. The reference to “west” is, on this construction, simply a reference to the fact that land within Precinct 4a generally (although not exclusively) lies to the west (or northwest or southwest).  It was submitted, for the appellant that, if that were so, the provision could have simply said that there be no access between Whitby Place and any land in 4a or no further access at all.  Instead, the provision was expressly limited not just to development within Precinct 4a, but to that which is both in 4a and to the “west”. 
[41]	The purpose of the specific outcome, so it was submitted for the appellant, is to prevent Whitby Place from being used as a ‘rat run’ between Kinross Road in the west and to Panorama Drive in the east. There are also other provisions which restrict east-west vehicular movement in other parts of the structure plan area. The proposal, it was submitted, addresses that concern by placing lots between the proposed loop road and the western boundary, so as to close off that potential. It was submitted for the respondent that, in light of the evident intent otherwise to restrict the catchment of Carlingford Drive (discussed later), the purpose of this particular provision is the prevention of further development accessing Whitby Place. That is difficult to accept, as a matter of construction, because it leaves little work for the word “west” to do.
[42]	The alternative submission for the respondent is that reference to “west” should be read as a reference to west of the extent of Whitby Place not as it currently is, but as it is envisaged by the structure plan; that is, when it has been closed at a point beyond the existing driveway crossover. Closure to that point has not occurred, but is shown on Map 2 as a proposed closure. If that were to be the construction then the proposal would conflict with the specific outcome, but only in relation to those lots within the development to the west of that point. That would lessen the gravity of the conflict.
[43]	The focus on Whitby Place is, in any event, somewhat artificial.  As counsel for the respondent acknowledged, the development, although changing Whitby Place from a cul-de-sac to part of a loop road, would have relatively little detrimental impact upon the operation or amenity of Whitby Place.  That is for two reasons.  First, as has already been observed, the connection to Whitby Place would only be for that part of Precinct 4a which is constituted by the subject site.  The layout would prevent any access from development further to the west.  Secondly, as the traffic engineers attested, relatively little traffic generated by the subject proposal would use Whitby Place.  That is because Caldwell Close would be the more direct and convenient route. Even if the proposal were seen to be in conflict with this specific outcome, the effect of the conflict would not be very great in relation to Whitby Place. The objection to the proposed connection at Whitby Place has more to do with the effect it may have on facilitating the de-facto extension of Caldwell Close.

CALDWELL CLOSE, THE ROAD HIERACHY AND THE RECONFIGURATION CODE
[44]	There is no express provision of the Structure Plan which says that Caldwell Close cannot be extended to cater for residential subdivision on the subject site.  Such an outcome, however, would depart from the existing and planned role of the existing roads in the movement system upon which the proposed development would rely.
[45]	It has already been observed that, in addition to the Structure Plan Code, the Reconfiguration Code is an applicable code for the purposes of assessing the subject development proposal.  Specific Outcome 1.2 of the Reconfiguration Code provides, relevantly, as follows:
“Section 1.2(1) the movement network associated with reconfiguration –
(a)	is based on the functional road classification of the local government’s adopted road hierarchy”
[46]	There are some other provisions of the Reconfiguration Code upon which the respondent relied. Specific Outcome 1.2(1)(c) refers to providing, amongst other things, good external connections for vehicles through the use of a grid pattern. External connections were discussed earlier. This provision is directed to the adoption of a “grid pattern”. It seems to add little to the consideration of the subject proposal. Specific Outcome 1.2(1)(k) refers to access streets being designed to reduce traffic volume and speed. The proposed new access street would increase volume and speed in Caldwell Close, but the real issue is the acceptability of changing the cul-de-sacs to a loop road, rather than the design or operation of the loop road if constructed. A similar observation may be made about Specific Outcome 1.4(e) which seeks reconfiguration which provides constructed road access commensurate with the location and expected end users. It is unnecessary to delay on those provisions however because in the course of oral argument, counsel effectively acknowledged that it is specific outcome 1.2(1)(a) which is of central importance in the application of this code to the subject proposal.
[47]	Specific Outcome 1.2(1)(a) concerns the movement network “associated with” the reconfiguration. That expression is broader than ‘within’. The proposal is to link the development in to the existing network within the Rushwood estate. The movement network ‘associated’ with the reconfiguration includes Whitby Place, Caldwell Close and part of Carlingford Drive. The first two of those were approved as access places, whilst Carlingford Drive was approved as an access street and is, in the main, intended to retain that classification, in the context of the structure plan.
[48]	There is no probable solution provided for that specific outcome, but there is a note which refers the reader to the infrastructure works code and to Policy 9 infrastructure works.  The appellant drew attention to the fact that Policy 9, whilst distinguishing between access places and access streets for the purposes of ascribing street names (the former being named as “court”, “close” or “place”, whilst the latter are named “street”, “terrace”, “vista”, “circuit” or “crescent”) include both within a type “A” road classification in Table 1 of the policy. That was the basis for a submission that the proposal here effectively to convert two access places to a loop road access street does not offend the classification of Whitby Place and Caldwell Close.  As was pointed out on behalf of the respondent, however, the reconfiguration code does not refer simply to a “classification”. Rather, it refers to the “functional” road classification.  Table 1 in Policy 9 classifies roads by type, rather than by function.  One must look elsewhere for a functional road classification of the council’s adopted road hierarchy. 
[49]	The Planning Scheme defines a “road hierarchy” as:
“a system in which roads are ranked in terms of their function, type and capacity to support different types of vehicles and volumes of traffic.”
[50]	The Planning Scheme elsewhere directs attention to Schedule 6 of the Planning Scheme for the local government’s network road hierarchy.   Schedule 6 contains a table (Table 1) which sets out the “functional characteristics of road types” and clearly distinguishes between access places which, relevantly, provide “local access to property via a single cul-de-sac” on the one hand and access streets on the other.  It also contains a table (Table 2) which sets out design characteristics for the various road types. That also distinguishes between access places and access streets. For example, access places have a maximum traffic catchment of 15 lots, whilst access streets have a maximum of 100. I do not accept the appellant’s contention that access places and access streets are indistinguishable in terms of the “functional road classification” of the adopted road hierarchy.
[51]	As its name suggests, Caldwell Close is an access place in accordance with the functional road classification of the hierarchy.  It provides local access to property via a single cul-de-sac.  It has a catchment of less than 15 lots. The proposal to extend it, through the site, to give access to 43 lots, and connect with Whitby Place is inconsistent with its functional road classification as an access place. 
[52]	Whilst there is nothing specifically in the Structure Plan which says that Caldwell Close may not be extended or changed there is, on the other hand, nothing which would give an expectation that it would or should.  The witnesses called by the appellant made some reference to provisions of the Structure Plan which discourage new cul-de-sacs from being developed, but there is nothing which suggests that existing cul-de-sacs in Rushwood Estate, including Caldwell Close, are intended to be altered.  
[53]	Further, the access arrangements proposed are, as counsel for the appellant fairly conceded in the course of oral argument, inconsistent with the hierarchy as it applies to Carlingford Drive. As has already been observed, the road movement network for the Structure Plan area is contained in Map 2.  That map depicts the collector road system. Although Carlingford Drive is constructed to a standard which would be suitable for a residential collector, it was approved as an access street and only a small section of the street (being the east-west section most proximate to its intersection with Panorama Drive, but beyond its intersections with either Whitby Place or Caldwell Close), is classified as a residential collector in the structure plan.  Otherwise, Carlingford Drive is treated as an access street. Reference to Table 2 of Schedule 6 reveals that the maximum traffic catchment for an access street is 100 lots.  Presently, there are 97 lots in that part of Carlingford Drive which has an access street classification.  The very limited extent to which Carlingford Drive is shown as a residential collector street in the Structure Plan is indicative that its residential catchment is intended to be restricted.  The proposal to have an additional 43 residential allotments on the subject site feeding into Carlingford Drive north of that part designated as a residential collector is inconsistent with that.
CONCLUSION ON CONFLICT
[54]	For the reasons discussed, the proposal is in conflict with the relevant planning instruments.  It is so in at least four respects, even assuming a lack of conflict with Specific Outcome 2.1(4)(k) of the Structure Plan.  First, it involves some interference with the Greenspace Precinct, although it was common ground that it does so in a limited way, for good reason, and that does not warrant a refusal of the development application.  Secondly, it fails to provide an esplanade treatment separating the Greenspace Precinct to the north from the nearest proposed lot.  That is a matter of conflict, but the gravity of that conflict is not great in view of the proposal to provide a 10m wide open space designation to provide a buffer between the proposed lot and the Greenspace designation. Thirdly, by turning its back on the planned road network to the west it fails to maximise connectivity, permeability and ease of mobility. Fourthly, the proposal is inconsistent with the functional classification of the elements of the road hierarchy with which the proposal would be associated. 
GROUNDS, AMENITY AND THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
[55]	It was contended, for the appellant, that there are sufficient grounds to warrant exercising the discretion to approve notwithstanding any conflict.  Those grounds were summarised in the written submissions for the appellant as follows:
“(a)	the proposal represents a logical extension to existing residential development in this part of Redland City;
(b)	the proposal will make an efficient use of existing infrastructure;
(c)	the matters in (a) and (b) above can be achieved absent unacceptable traffic engineering impacts;
(d)	the proposal is consistent with SEQ Regional Plans target for infill development;
(e)	the proposal will facilitate the provision of pedestrian and cycle connections contemplated by the Structure Plan Code at no cost to the public, which will include the dedication of land to improve the interface between private land and the Greenspace Precinct.”
[56]	The proposal is not without some merit.  It lies in a Structure Plan where residential development is intended to take place. The site is appropriately zoned and designated for development of this kind and would assist in achieving planned pedestrian and cycle connections. 
[57]	I am conscious that the SEQ Regional Plan expressly recognises that “Kinross Road and East Thornlands are Local Development Areas proximate to existing urban areas and infrastructure and capable of accommodating urban development in the short term… Planning for both development areas will maximise opportunities for urban development where appropriate to help deliver the expected growth and establish consolidated urban communities”.
[58]	I accept that there is a general level of community benefit to the development potential of the structure plan area being achieved in a timely way.  In order to achieve that development potential on this site at this point in time however, the appellant seeks to use the existing road network to the east, rather than the planned network to the west. In so doing, the proposal achieves some efficiency, in terms of use of existing infrastructure, but would fail to maximise permeability, connectivity and ease of mobility and would have a detrimental effect on the high standard of amenity enjoyed by existing residents to the east, particularly on those in Caldwell Close. It is difficult to accept that when there is planning in place for the provision of road infrastructure to/from the west which would obviate the difficulties associated with access to the east. Mr Williams conceded that the western option would be preferable, in amenity terms, if it were readily available.
[59]	Mr Humphreys described the cul-de-sacs as an interim and substandard design solution. Mr Beard rejected that description as “silly”. As he attested, there is nothing, from a traffic engineering perspective, which makes the continued existence of those cul-de-sacs inappropriate.  Mr Williams ultimately did not contend to the contrary. As Mr Beard also pointed out, there is nothing “on the ground” which would indicate that the cul-de-sacs are an interim solution or would lead to an expectation of a change in their functional road classification. They have cul-de-sac heads constructed in an apparently ultimate and permanent form. 
[60]	It was stressed, on behalf of the appellant, that both cul-de-sacs give frontage to an undeveloped block of land. As Mr Beard acknowledged, that might create an expectation of a very limited number of additional driveway crossovers on to the cul-de-sac heads, but does not lead to an expectation of them being changed from access places to a new loop road. Suggestions that the new arrangements may be of some material benefit to existing residents in the cul-de-sacs did not withstand scrutiny.
[61]	It was pointed out, on behalf of the appellant, that there would be no unacceptable impact in terms of safety or efficiency arising from any conflict. Further, it was pointed out that the respondent had withdrawn its previous contention of conflict with the Infrastructure Works Code.  Whilst that may be accepted, the amenity consequences associated should not be ignored.
[62]	It was also pointed out, on behalf of the appellant, that the ultimate traffic volumes in Caldwell Close provide a residential amenity which would generally be considered to be acceptable in the context of access streets.  That may be so, but as Mr Beard pointed out, access places offer a higher standard of amenity.  The proposal, in this case, would lead to a substantial increase in the volume of traffic, and some increase in its speed. That would, I accept, have a significant adverse effect upon that existing high standard of amenity. As Mr Williams accepted, the residential catchment, traffic volumes and, consequently, the level of amenity which would arise from the proposal being added to Caldwell Close is not consistent with what the scheme intends for an access place. It is, in the circumstances, not unreasonable for those who bought into Caldwell Close in particular to expect their level of amenity to be maintained.  It should not be surprising that they object to the diminution of their amenity which would flow from the proposed development. 
[63]	As Mr Williams conceded, had the applicant, instead of joining Caldwell Close to Whitby Place, simply provided for an extension of the Caldwell Close cul-de-sac to serve the new lots, it would clearly have been contrary to the scheme’s requirements in relation to the design characteristics of access places. Given that very little traffic would be expected to use Whitby Place in the event that the subject proposal proceeded, Mr Williams found it difficult to identify how the subject proposal, would, in a practical sense, be of lesser impact.
[64]	The appellant and its traffic engineer eschewed any suggestion that the residents of Caldwell Close were being unreasonable. Indeed, it was submitted for the appellant that “it is not submitted that the views (of the residents) are unreasonable” but that “absent conflict with an applicable code, the impacts on amenity do not warrant refusal…” I have, however, found that there is a degree of conflict.
[65]	I appreciate that the timing of the provision of road infrastructure to the west is not certain. That the subject site is appropriately zoned for development was a matter of emphasis for the appellant. However, not every parcel of appropriately zoned land within a Structure Plan Area can necessarily realise its development potential from day one. 
[66]	The public interest served by realising development potential is one which relates to the broader structure plan area. Given the level of detailed planning, and evidence of both development activity and developer interest, there appears to be no cause for pessimism about the realisation of the planning intent for the area generally.  I do not consider there is a sufficient public benefit in developing this particular parcel of land at this particular point in time such as to outweigh the extent of conflict, given the likely impact of the proposal, including the amenity impact which the residents of Caldwell Close in particular are being asked to accept, in order to facilitate the proposed development.

CONCLUSION 
[67]	For the reasons given, the appellant has fallen short of discharging its onus. The appeal is dismissed.