Essence Estate developer returns to planning and environment court for minor changes to 2015 approval of controversial subdivision

It was approved by the courts six years ago, despite more than 100 submissions against it by residents. Now the developer behind a controversial housing estate has submitted changes.

Essence Estate.

The developer behind a controversial Toowoomba housing estate has gone back to court to get changes made to the approval, six years after it successfully appealed the council’s decision to reject it.

Harmony Glades Pty Ltd earned approval from the planning and environment court in 2015 for its Essence Estate development in Cotswold Hills.

This came after the council refused the original proposal, on the back more than 100 submissions against it by the community.

Now the developer and the council have returned to court, with the former proposing “minor changes” to the development.

Since the court gave the original approval, all minor changes must go through the same channel.

According to court documents, Harmony Glades has proposed removing future access to the north of the site and the associated medium density residential precinct, introducing three more residential lots into stage two and breaking stages two and three into sub-stages.

“The proposed changes will be reflected in a revised suite of approved plans for the development, replacing their original counterparts necessitating consequential changes to the conditions to reflect same,” the document said.

The developer said the court had to determine whether the slew of changes were minor in nature, which it believed they were based on current planning definitions.

Along with original statement of claim, the developer’s town planner James Brownsworth submitted an affidavit, which outlined the amount of time and money that would be required to obtain consent from all 63 of the owners currently holding land within the estate.

Mr Brownsworth suggested the entire process could take up to six months to complete, if the court were to deem it a necessary step.

“In my opinion, the process of obtaining consent from 63 lot owners for this minor change application would be costly, time consuming and administratively burdensome,” he wrote.

“This is contributed to by the fact that some owners may not even reside at the Essence Estate.

“The utility of this process may be compromised by the very real risk that not all lot owners will actually respond to the request.”

The original application received 119 submission and one petition against it, with issues covering traffic, stormwater, amenity, need, services, infrastructure, footpaths along with parks and recreation.

Originally published as Essence Estate developer returns to planning and environment court for minor changes to 2015 approval of controversial subdivision