Amenity and aesthetics Print E-mail
{arijdatatable bAutoWidth="true" bPaginate="true" bFilter="true" bInfo="true" bSort="false" oLanguage_sSearch="Filter decisions"}
AppealSubjectType and size
25-10 Council refusal of an application for relocation of a building on amenity and aesthetic grounds
(Refer Planning and Environment Court Judgement 77of 2009)		 PDF icon 116 KB
3-09-048 Council refusal of an application for a covered deck on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 122 KB
3-07-63 Imposition of a condition by council on a Preliminary Development Permit for proposed a shed (class 10a structure) on the shed was twice the allowable size under the criteria for domestic out buildings. PDF icon 75 KB
3-07-38 Council refusal of the proposed re-siting of a detached dwelling (class 1) on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 59 KB
3-07-24 Council refusal of the relocation of a class 1 building on grounds that it would be in extreme conflict with the character of the locality. PDF icon 67 KB
3-06-109 Council refusal of an application for a proposed shed, on the grounds that it will have an extremely adverse effect on the amenity or likely amenity, of the locality and be in extreme conflict with the amenity and aesthetics character of the area. PDF icon 66 KB
3-06-93-a

Council refusal of a siting variation application for building works, on the grounds that it would have an extreme adverse effect on the amenity or likely amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Appeal has 2 parts - A&A and Siting decisions are decided separately

 PDF icon 65 KB
3-06-84

Toowoomba City Council refusal of an application for an entertainment pavilion on both amenity and aesthetic and siting grounds.

 PDF icon 69 KB
3-06-65 Council refusal of an application for the approval of a class 10a building on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 56 KB
3-06-60 Council refusal of an application for a class 10 building on the grounds that the proposal is in council’s opinion a Detached Dwelling and is therefore not an ancillary use to the primary dwelling, and related amenity and character concerns relating to the proposal. PDF icon 161 KB
3-06-55 Council refusal of an application for a class 10 building on the grounds that the structure will have an extreme adverse affect on the amenity or future amenity of the proposed building’s neighbourhood. PDF icon 64 KB
3-06-22 Council refusal of an application for a class 10 building under Section 21 of the Standard Building Regulation 1993 (SBR) in application of its Amenity and Aesthetics Policy under Section 50 of the SBR. PDF icon 74 KB
3-06-5 Council refusal of an application for a proposed garage, on the grounds it will have an adverse effect and be in conflict with the amenity and aesthetics of the area. PDF icon 65 KB
3-05-59 Council refusal of an application on for the location of a shipping container on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 63 KB
3-05-50 Council refusal of an application for amenity and aesthetics assessment, before allowing construction of a shed. PDF icon 56 KB
3-05-48 Council refusal of an application for building a relocatable dwelling on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 59 KB
3-05-47 Council refusal of an application for building of a class 10 metal framed and clad shed on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 77 KB
3-05-35-AA

Council refusal of a relaxation for the height and location of a proposed garage on amenity and aesthetics grounds.

Appeal has 2 parts - A&A and Siting decisions are decided separately

 PDF icon 66 KB
3-05-35 Council refusal of a relaxation for the height and location of a proposed garage on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 71 KB
3-05-23 Council refusal of a preliminary development approval for a class 10 metal framed and clad shed on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 62 KB
3-05-22 Council refusal of an application for the location of two shipping containers on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 68 KB
3-05-11-AA Council refusal of a preliminary application for construction of a class 10 carport on both siting (see 3-05-11 under Siting Decisions) and on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 61 KB
3-04-054A The appeal is against the decision of the Caboolture Shire Council not to grant a siting relaxation for a proposed garage as council's amenity and aesthetics policy states the building or structure, when built, will be in extreme conflict with the character of the proposed building's neighbourhood (see also 3-04-054B under Siting requirements). PDF icon 66 KB
3-04-046A The appeal is against the decision of the Caboolture Shire Council not to grant an approval to construct a carport building or structure, as when it is built it will have an extremely adverse effect on the amenity or future amenity of the proposed building's neighbourhood and the aesthetics of the building or structure, when built, will be in extreme conflict with the character of the proposed building's neighbourhood (see also 3-04-046B under Siting requirements). PDF icon 64 KB
3-04-027A This appeal is against a decision of Caboolture Shire Council not to grant an approval to construct a carport. The decision considers that:
  1. the building or structure, when built will have an extremely adverse effect on the amenity or future amenity of the proposed building's neighbourhood
  2. under Section A1(c) of the Queensland Development Code there are alternative locations on the site to locate a carport in compliance with A1(c)(ii) and therefore the carport does not comply with Part 12 A1(c) of the Queensland Development Code (see 3-04-027B under Siting requirements for details of this part of the decision).
 PDF icon 61 KB
3-04-023 This appeal under Section 4.2.9 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 is against the decision of the Caboolture Shire Council to refuse an application for the conversion of part of a class 10 building to class 1, on aesthetic and character grounds, in that a shed converted to a dwelling would not be in keeping with the street and would set a precedent. PDF icon 71 KB
3-04-016 In accordance with Section 4.2.34(2)(a) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 the tribunal confirmed a decision appealed against. The appellant made a request to Gladstone City Council on 21 January 2004 seeking an amenity and aesthetics assessment for the relocation of a removal house. PDF icon 73 KB
3-03-076 This appeal under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and Section 21 of the Standard Building Regulation 1993 is against the decision of Cairns City Council to refuse an application under its amenity and aesthetics policy for approval to relocate a house. PDF icon 42 KB
3-03-059 This appeal is against the decision of the Gold Coast City Council to refuse an application for preliminary building work under its amenity and aesthetics policy because the proposed:
  1. development is not in keeping with the existing character of the buildings neighbourhood
  2. building's construction materials are inconsistent with existing buildings in the neighbourhood.
 PDF icon 80 KB
3-03-048 The appeal is against the decision of the Gold Coast City Council to impose the following conditions on Preliminary Building Application No 23/12156, Development Application No 23/02860, for the construction of a carport. The carport: 
  1. length shall not exceed 2.9 metres at the road front boundary to the top of the parapet
  2. width is not to exceed 6.8 metres along the road front boundary.
PDF icon 25 KB
3-03-047 The appeal is against the decision of Hervey Bay City Council to impose a condition on an amenity and aesthetics approval for a removal dwelling requiring the maximum floor height above natural ground level, measured at the front of the dwelling, to not exceed 600 millimetres.
 PDF icon 28 KB
3-03-015 The appeal is against the decision of Caboolture Shire Council to refuse an application for the relocation of a removal dwelling on amenity and aesthetics grounds. PDF icon 51 KB
3-03-007 The appeal is against the decision of Logan City Council to refuse an application seeking an amendment to delete a portion of the front veranda and the entire right-hand side veranda in relation to a previous approval dated 23 October 2002, for an amenity and aesthetics assessment of a class 1a removal dwelling. PDF icon 44 KB
3-02-022 The appeal is under Section 4.2.9. of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 against the decision of Isis Shire Council to refuse an application to resite a dwelling. The council considers that the relocation of the dwelling would be prejudicial to the amenity and aesthetics of the area in which the dwelling is to be resited. PDF icon KB
3-02-001 The appeal is under Section 4.2.9. of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 against the decision of Caboolture Shire Council to refuse an application for a boundary relaxation for the erection of a carport. PDF icon 48 KB
3-01-003

The appeal is under Section 21 of the Standard Building Regulation 1993 against the decision of Townsville City Council to refuse an application for the proposed erection of a dwelling and retaining wall for the following reasons, in relation to amenity and aesthetics: 

  • the visual impact created by the bulk of the building and associated works, as per the design submitted, is considered to have an extremely adverse effect on the amenity or likely amenity of the building's neighbourhood.
 PDF icon 27 KB
3-00-032 The appeal is lodged against the decision of Crows Nest Shire Council not to grant a development approval for building work to relocate a railway carriage for the following reasons:
  1. the council considers the railway carriage will be a relative's accommodation
  2. the relocation of the railway carriage in Ballantyne Court would be in extreme conflict with the character of the area.
 PDF icon 21 KB
{/arijdatatable}
Last Updated on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 14:32