#Approved: 480 Queen Street - 34st/144m/office

[KJBrissy]

The only reason I can see it being rejected is on the bulk of the base. Otherwise it is all in the spirit of the plan.

[SoulvisionQ1]

Who is suing who? and why? I thought this was all done and dusted once Suncorp decided on Southpoint.

[nathandavid88]

From what I understand, an individual who isn't happy about the development has taken Grocon and BCC to the Planning and Environment Court.

The appeal notice is in the DA. His grounds for appealing are:

1) The proposed development conflicts with the planning scheme and the overall planning outcomes for the area;

2) There are not sufficient grounds to support the approval of the development application despite the conflicts with the planning scheme;

3) There is no need for the proposed development.

That's all I know about it. If anyone has more information (and are able to speak about the matter), I'd love to hear about what this is all about.

[Brissy4me]

Originally Posted by nathandavid88

From what I understand, an individual who isn't happy about the development has taken Grocon and BCC to the Planning and Environment Court.

The appeal notice is in the DA. His grounds for appealing are:



That's all I know about it. If anyone has more information (and are able to speak about the matter), I'd love to hear about what this is all about.

See - http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...ilenumber=2/12

Feel free to browse the PDF documents.

[gerryt1]

Originally Posted by Brissy4me

See - http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...ilenumber=2/12

Feel free to browse the PDF documents.

I have done that and can't make head nor tail of it.

It's very bad manners for a few to be virtually talking amongst themselves.

If you people who know something but don't want to or can't share with the rest of us, would you please keep quite until you ARE prepared to share.

Thanks to Nathan for his courtesy.

[Marty_]

I wasn't joining the discussion really - I have no idea what it is about either. I just thought the post I responded to made suspiciously little sense.

[SoulvisionQ1]

What a strange individual... I wonder if they realise that the development most likely won't even get up anymore.

[duke]

Originally Posted by SoulvisionQ1

What a strange individual...

Having waded through some of the PDF's, it is unbelieveable that the system allows an individual to lodge such a vague and unsubstantiated appeal and cause so much effort to be expended trying to make sense of it. In my opinion, the appeal should have been rejected on the grounds that the appellant has not provided sufficient information to enable the appeal authority to make a decision.

[fastsunny]

I must be missing something here. This DA is not 'in the spirit of the plan' hence why it was lodged as a generally inappropriate application.
As for Darren John Tickle's reasons, no doubt they will be expanded on not only in his further and better particulars but also the expert reports he is required to submit.
If this is the case, why you guys so keen to bag him?
I have been involved in numerous P&E actions (on both sides). In all cases you limit your reasons until directed by the courts. Why show your hand early!

[fastsunny]

I must be missing something here. This DA is not 'in the spirit of the plan' hence why it was lodged as a generally inappropriate application.
As for Darren John Tickle's reasons, no doubt they will be expanded on not only in his further and better particulars but also the expert reports he is required to submit.
If this is the case, why you guys so keen to bag him?
I have been involved in numerous P&E actions (on both sides). In all cases you limit your reasons until directed by the courts. Why show your hand early!

[BrissyMan1]

Originally Posted by duke

Having waded through some of the PDF's, it is unbelieveable that the system allows an individual to lodge such a vague and unsubstantiated appeal and cause so much effort to be expended trying to make sense of it. In my opinion, the appeal should have been rejected on the grounds that the appellant has not provided sufficient information to enable the appeal authority to make a decision.

Hence the last court judgement for the appealant to provide further information by a certain date.

If that information was not forthcoming then expect this one to be rejected as you suggest.

[OUTOFNOWHERE]

Today's Courier Mail says this project is starting in the next few months. Law Firm Freehills has signed a heads of agreement for the top three floors.

[BrizzyChris]

That's a shame.

[swifty78]

What a waste of a great site...

[Marty_]

Don't jump on this news too quickly, guys. Something is amiss. Can't explain at this point.

[CULWULLA]

todays AFR
looks good
gonna start before xmas

[asdfg]

Looks good to me.

[BrizzyChris]

Has the design been completely revised?

[38921111]

Originally Posted by Marty_

Don't jump on this news too quickly, guys. Something is amiss. Can't explain at this point.

something besides their claim that a 7% precommitment is sufficient for them to proceed?

[nathandavid88]

Originally Posted by BrizzyChris

Has the design been completely revised?

I thought that too... I just checked and there doesn't appear to be anything on PD Online to suggest any revisions, so I'm guessing that the artist impression they got just sucks? Unless the differences in the render relates somehow to what Marty mentioned?