#Scrapped: Emerald Tower - 73st/230m/res (Part 2) - Page 2

gerbilus · April 20th, 2006, 10:47 AM

I think the basic answer is nobody really knows, we are in totall new territory now.

I think possibly the minister has to approve it.

In summary the Judgment was that the Minister cannot approve/or refuse the development without due regard for the planning scheme. The scheme was not a part of the final decision notice by the minister.

Basically if Emerald complied with the relevant codes of the BCC planning scheme thefore they must approved it.

If you ask me I think the Judge has misinterpeted the Act ( I have read his full judgment), buts thats another story....

im going to stop now this is too much like work for me

Malt · April 20th, 2006, 12:23 PM

Its clear that If they needed to go to the minister to deny it, as there was no other legal way, and the minister is required to abide by the same code that the council did, then the whole situation is just pointless.

JayT · April 20th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Emerald will make a fantastic addition to my view of the city - very nice

Rusty · April 20th, 2006, 01:59 PM

That thing is so going to sway heaps during storms and wind.

A r c h i · April 20th, 2006, 03:01 PM

I think the curved facade would limit the amount of sway.

Locke · April 20th, 2006, 03:20 PM

Looking good then!

I doubt Emerald or any other tall in Aus moves much in the wind.

Still, it will be very exciting, we will be watching at least 3 talls rise at the same time in Brisbane, that's unprecendented! It's good to have quality stuff constantly going up, gives the place a positive vibe.

Locke · April 21st, 2006, 01:16 AM

From today's CM, Emerald are confident it will go ahead

Appeal for clear rules
The Courier-Mail, Apr 21 2006

DEVELOPMENT groups are demanding a clearer definition of "state interest" following a Supreme Court decision which overruled the State Government's controversial move to block a Brisbane highrise.

Planning Minister Desley Boyle was found to have acted outside her powers in knocking back Emerald Tower, a 77-storey building proposed for Queen St, in October 2004.

The developer, Emerald Group, is now confident that the project will go ahead despite the fact it still has to be reassessed by Ms Boyle.

Earlier this week, Premier Peter Beattie said he did not believe the judgment would have an impact on other cases but did not rule out changing the laws if necessary to give the government more power to block developments deemed not to be in the state's interest.

Urban Development Industry Association executive director and barrister Brian Stewart said he hoped current planning schemes would not be amended as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

"If the Government is going to amend IPA as a result of this decision, the industry would be gravely concerned if they wanted to follow an approach that allowed the State Government to arbitrarily overrule planning schemes on the notion of an alleged "state interest" that is simply not defined," Mr Stewart said.

Property Council of Australia executive director Robert Walker said he was pleased with the decision as the PCA questioned Ms Boyle's reasons for blocking the development at the time. He believed the decision would prompt the Government to review IPA and its definition of "state interest".

gerbilus · April 21st, 2006, 01:26 AM

and thus it starts just as I predicted......

KJBrissy · April 21st, 2006, 08:57 AM

I personally can't see why so many politicians have a thing against this building...I love it!!!

SoulvisionQ1 · April 21st, 2006, 09:01 AM

If our mayor happens to be roaming around this forum (highly unlikely) I have some words for you.
Let it go Cambell... Let it go...

GMAC · April 21st, 2006, 11:02 AM

I will be very interested to see what the definition of 'State Interest' is, cos I am still completely bemused as to how this building ever effected the states interest. I would have thought that there were plenty of other more important things for the state to be interested in.

nikko · April 21st, 2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMAC

I am still completely bemused as to how this building ever effected the states interest. I would have thought that there were plenty of other more important things for the state to be interested in.

It doesn't, Desley Boyle is simply insane. Remember her ideas for closing the borders and all that other bullshit? Who knows what was going through her head (a gust of wind most likely) when she exercised the 'call -in' powers.

cp1 · April 23rd, 2006, 05:14 AM

Do u think the height of emerald will be extended, or will it remain the same height?

Locke · April 23rd, 2006, 05:26 AM

Lol, I think that might be pushing their luck a bit far:P (though I'd prefer a 280m Emerald

). Still before construction starts maybe Culwulla can call and get a final height, in 3-4 years something might have moved about a bit (but i'd say it's probably stay 230m).

KJBrissy · April 25th, 2006, 08:00 AM

Would anyone know when emerald are going to submit the DA into BCC. My assumption would be ASAP seeing they just want to get this thing off the ground.

Maybee the facts on Emporis need to be changed also in line with recent events!

neilo63 · April 25th, 2006, 08:19 AM

It has been through DA, council objected to it, they appealed in court and won.

KJBrissy · April 25th, 2006, 08:21 AM

Fromwhat I heard though, the need to resubmit the DA and it is to ony be assessed against the codes

CULWULLA · April 25th, 2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

Lol, I think that might be pushing their luck a bit far:P (though I'd prefer a 280m Emerald

). Still before construction starts maybe Culwulla can call and get a final height, in 3-4 years something might have moved about a bit (but i'd say it's probably stay 230m).

ive been meaning to call the architects. give me a week or so.
cheers

Brissy4me · May 3rd, 2006, 06:35 AM

I have nothing against Emerald Towers, does anyone know the case name in the supreme court and at first instance? I am interested to read the Judgement and see what legal principle the judges were trying to convey. Shouldn't Emporis have shown Emerald Towers as being on hold or proposed? Because to show the status as never built when it can still be built is not accurate. That's just my view though.

DeejayT · May 3rd, 2006, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brissy4me

I have nothing against Emerald Towers, does anyone know the case name in the supreme court and at first instance? I am interested to read the Judgement and see what legal principle the judges were trying to convey. Shouldn't Emporis have shown Emerald Towers as being on hold or proposed? Because to show the status as never built when it can still be built is not accurate. That's just my view though.

is this what you are looking for? here

April 20th, 2006, 10:47 AM	#21
gerbilus Dinosaur Planner Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: South East Queensland Posts: 218 Likes (Received): 0	I think the basic answer is nobody really knows, we are in totall new territory now. I think possibly the minister has to approve it. In summary the Judgment was that the Minister cannot approve/or refuse the development without due regard for the planning scheme. The scheme was not a part of the final decision notice by the minister. Basically if Emerald complied with the relevant codes of the BCC planning scheme thefore they must approved it. If you ask me I think the Judge has misinterpeted the Act ( I have read his full judgment), buts thats another story.... im going to stop now this is too much like work for me __________________ As Fred Daly once said of Menzies: "[He] set out to do nothing, took a long time to do it and did it pretty well." "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." Robert Anson Wilson Last edited by gerbilus; April 20th, 2006 at 11:57 AM.

April 20th, 2006, 01:26 PM	#23
JayT Like whatever.... Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Brisbane/Gold Coast Queensland Australia Posts: 7,990 Likes (Received): 92	Emerald will make a fantastic addition to my view of the city - very nice __________________ My Current Favorite Cities & Regions: SINGAPORE, Iskandar (Malaysia), Macau/Zhuhai (China), Curitiba (BR), Blumenau (BR), San Francisco (USA)

April 20th, 2006, 03:01 PM	#25
A r c h i Render Monkey Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 5,794 Likes (Received): 12	I think the curved facade would limit the amount of sway. __________________ Check out Urban Melbourne for your Melbourne Development fix.

April 20th, 2006, 03:20 PM	#26
Locke alright, kick-ass Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,378 Likes (Received): 187	Looking good then! I doubt Emerald or any other tall in Aus moves much in the wind. Still, it will be very exciting, we will be watching at least 3 talls rise at the same time in Brisbane, that's unprecendented! It's good to have quality stuff constantly going up, gives the place a positive vibe. __________________ You had me at meat tornado.

April 21st, 2006, 01:16 AM	#27
Locke alright, kick-ass Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,378 Likes (Received): 187	From today's CM, Emerald are confident it will go ahead Appeal for clear rules The Courier-Mail, Apr 21 2006 DEVELOPMENT groups are demanding a clearer definition of "state interest" following a Supreme Court decision which overruled the State Government's controversial move to block a Brisbane highrise. Planning Minister Desley Boyle was found to have acted outside her powers in knocking back Emerald Tower, a 77-storey building proposed for Queen St, in October 2004. The developer, Emerald Group, is now confident that the project will go ahead despite the fact it still has to be reassessed by Ms Boyle. Earlier this week, Premier Peter Beattie said he did not believe the judgment would have an impact on other cases but did not rule out changing the laws if necessary to give the government more power to block developments deemed not to be in the state's interest. Urban Development Industry Association executive director and barrister Brian Stewart said he hoped current planning schemes would not be amended as a result of the Supreme Court decision. "If the Government is going to amend IPA as a result of this decision, the industry would be gravely concerned if they wanted to follow an approach that allowed the State Government to arbitrarily overrule planning schemes on the notion of an alleged "state interest" that is simply not defined," Mr Stewart said. Property Council of Australia executive director Robert Walker said he was pleased with the decision as the PCA questioned Ms Boyle's reasons for blocking the development at the time. He believed the decision would prompt the Government to review IPA and its definition of "state interest". __________________ You had me at meat tornado.

April 20th, 2006, 12:23 PM	#22
Malt Its a sleepy little town Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Emerald Posts: 3,514 Likes (Received): 10	Its clear that If they needed to go to the minister to deny it, as there was no other legal way, and the minister is required to abide by the same code that the council did, then the whole situation is just pointless.

April 20th, 2006, 01:59 PM	#24
Rusty Hot Hard and Hungry Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 177 Likes (Received): 0	That thing is so going to sway heaps during storms and wind.

April 21st, 2006, 01:26 AM	#28
gerbilus Dinosaur Planner Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: South East Queensland Posts: 218 Likes (Received): 0	and thus it starts just as I predicted...... __________________ As Fred Daly once said of Menzies: "[He] set out to do nothing, took a long time to do it and did it pretty well." "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." Robert Anson Wilson

April 21st, 2006, 08:57 AM	#29
KJBrissy ........... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane Posts: 9,397 Likes (Received): 140	I personally can't see why so many politicians have a thing against this building...I love it!!! __________________ "Traditionally what has hurt people has not been rising interest rates but rising unemployment. I don't care what rate you're paying, if you have a mortgage five times your income and you lose your job, you're toast." Gerard Minack, chief economist at Morgan Stanley.

April 21st, 2006, 09:01 AM	#30
SoulvisionQ1 New Urbanist Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Queensland Posts: 4,196 Likes (Received): 78	If our mayor happens to be roaming around this forum (highly unlikely) I have some words for you. Let it go Cambell... Let it go...

April 21st, 2006, 11:02 AM	#31
GMAC Yeah but No!! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Brisbane Posts: 1,416 Likes (Received): 2	I will be very interested to see what the definition of 'State Interest' is, cos I am still completely bemused as to how this building ever effected the states interest. I would have thought that there were plenty of other more important things for the state to be interested in.

April 23rd, 2006, 05:14 AM	#33
cp1 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Brisbane Posts: 338 Likes (Received): 0	Do u think the height of emerald will be extended, or will it remain the same height?

April 23rd, 2006, 05:26 AM	#34
Locke alright, kick-ass Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,378 Likes (Received): 187	Lol, I think that might be pushing their luck a bit far:P (though I'd prefer a 280m Emerald). Still before construction starts maybe Culwulla can call and get a final height, in 3-4 years something might have moved about a bit (but i'd say it's probably stay 230m). __________________ You had me at meat tornado.

April 25th, 2006, 08:00 AM	#35
KJBrissy ........... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane Posts: 9,397 Likes (Received): 140	Would anyone know when emerald are going to submit the DA into BCC. My assumption would be ASAP seeing they just want to get this thing off the ground. Maybee the facts on Emporis need to be changed also in line with recent events! __________________ "Traditionally what has hurt people has not been rising interest rates but rising unemployment. I don't care what rate you're paying, if you have a mortgage five times your income and you lose your job, you're toast." Gerard Minack, chief economist at Morgan Stanley.

April 25th, 2006, 08:19 AM	#36
neilo63 NOD Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brisbane, Posts: 1,209 Likes (Received): 29	It has been through DA, council objected to it, they appealed in court and won. __________________ I don't want to be around when all these 'green walls' become brown walls. Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful Warren Buffett

April 25th, 2006, 08:21 AM	#37
KJBrissy ........... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane Posts: 9,397 Likes (Received): 140	Fromwhat I heard though, the need to resubmit the DA and it is to ony be assessed against the codes __________________ "Traditionally what has hurt people has not been rising interest rates but rising unemployment. I don't care what rate you're paying, if you have a mortgage five times your income and you lose your job, you're toast." Gerard Minack, chief economist at Morgan Stanley.

May 3rd, 2006, 06:35 AM	#39
Brissy4me Come as you are... Join Date: May 2006 Location: Brisbane Posts: 1,527 Likes (Received): 0	I have nothing against Emerald Towers, does anyone know the case name in the supreme court and at first instance? I am interested to read the Judgement and see what legal principle the judges were trying to convey. Shouldn't Emporis have shown Emerald Towers as being on hold or proposed? Because to show the status as never built when it can still be built is not accurate. That's just my view though. __________________ I don't recall saying that.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode