Planning application at 35 Eveleigh Street, Arana Hills QLD 4054
Oct. 15, 2018, 3:28 a.m.
We understand and have reviewed the letter correspondence letter sent to Lloyd Taylor (the developer of 82 pluck rd) on 12th October 2018 regarding the confusion and issues pertaining to the layout presented for the development proposal and the ultimate layout that the applicant wishes the application to be assessed under. In response to this we continue to question why council appears unable to take a firmer stance on this issue as follows:
1. Why is council asking the developer whether they think the public notification period should recommence. Isnt this up to the council to direct him to do this due to the confusion with the current application. I simply expect the applicant to say no. If this is the case does this give residents a legal stance on incorrect and misleading Public Notification?
2. The applicant has advised that he is seeking approval on the new ultimate layout (refer info request response) however the fact that applicant has notified the public on a different superseded layout needs to be addressed. It has also become evident that the supporting technical reports haven’t been updated appropriately and still contain simple errors that makes the submission in its current form significantly underdone and not suitable for public comment. This is a very simple and significant error that the letter response seems to have passed over and legal comment on the validity of the DA as it stand should be undertaken.
The issue of the DA having two different layouts and conflicting supporting technical documents needs to be addressed. The rules for DA application states that what is being applied for needs to be clear and concise and that any different layout needs to form part of a different DA.
It is my understanding that a DA can only have one proposed arrangement and a different layout needs a different submission. Refer DA Assessment Rules - Planning Act 2016. The variation in the proposed arrangements, access and layout indicates that according to Schedule 1 of the Planning Act 2016 that this is a "Substantially different development" due to the following:
(c) changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance (d) changes the ability of the site to operate as intended € removes a component that is critical to the operation (i.e. access) (f) significantly impacts traffic (g) introduces new impacts or increases severity of known impacts
As a result we feel that the applicant is trying to push 2 layouts as part of this single DA that are both significantly different....
Telling the community to make comment on both layouts isnt a really viable option as we are not expected to have to do this as part of the Planning Act (Do we get 15 days each to comment on 2 layouts - total 30 days - I think not) . As an unbiased council the residents should be getting as much consideration as the developer who has time and time again made this entire process very difficult but has seemed to have the council accept time and time again the unrealistic delays and significantly poor standards of submission.
3. The community is requesting that legal review of this DA in this inappropriate form is sought as it is a very simple issue. The technical and supporting documents do not reflect the layout being sought by the applicant and have significant errors and assumptions that cant be supported. The council needs to step up and agree that residents are not being given information to a level to allow for accurate public notification.
4. There is significant reason to go back again with further information requests and to not accept the DA in its current form. Can council please undertake legal review to identify at what point a rejection of this DA would then absolve them from any compensation claim. I am sure there is a point where council accepts that legally it has an argument to support not having to make compensation as the DA was not to a suitable standard for public comment in the timeframes given.
The issue as we see it still remains significantly unresolved and continues to make the process of public consultation a complete farce at this moment in time.
As expected we are becoming increasingly frustrated that these matters cant be resolved in a timely manner when such strict time periods for our objections are imposed.
I do however understand that it gives the community more ammunition for an appeal in future. The community is asking council to reject this application for the reasons stated above. A timely legal response from council would be appreciated that actually deals with the easily understood issue at hand.
Save Our Streets
From Save Our Streets to local councillor Adrian Raedel