Planning and Environment Court dismisses Consuelo appeal

Consuelo’s fate has been sealed by the dismissal of a court appeal against the development forcing the relocation of the 110-year old Queenslander. SEE THE TIMELINE:

A last-ditch attempt to preserve the site of an historic Bundaberg Queenslander has come to an end with an appeal against Council’s approval of the controversial development dismissed by the Planning and Environment Court.

A last-ditch attempt to preserve the site of a historic Bundaberg Queenslander has come to an end with an appeal against the council’s approval of the development there dismissed by the Planning and Environment Court.

A consortium including the granddaughter of the original owners of Consuelo, a historic Queenslander built in 1912, lodged an appeal in March 2023 against Bundaberg Regional Council’s approval of a development application for a 90-capacity childcare centre at 210 George St, Bundaberg West.

The appeal was dismissed by the Planning and Environment Court in a judgement handed down on July 14, including an order that the development application submitted by Uniland Investments be approved.

Revealed: Queensland’s top 20 regional suburbs for price growth

One of the directors of Uniland Investments, Kenneth Yong, confirmed on Friday that Consuelo would be relocated rather than demolished, and the iconic giant bottle tree on the property preserved in situ.

Mr Yong has engaged a house relocation firm to move Consuelo to a yet to be determined location, which he expects will be completed by the end of August subject to planning and roads approvals.

Uniland Investments has engaged Atlas House Removers to relocate Consuelo to a yet to be determined location, which a director expects will be completed by the end of August subject to approvals.

The granddaughter of the original owners, Frances Grassick, said the appeal was hampered by Consuelo not having the protection of heritage listing, for which she applied after the development application was approved in a February council meeting.

Ms Grassick first contacted the Queensland Heritage Council via email in February and made a formal application in April to have Consuelo added to the Queensland Heritage Register which was deemed unsatisfactory.

“Unfortunately, it was after council had already approved the development,” Ms Grassick said.

“I found the Heritage Department very dismissive, they didn’t seem too interested in helping or concerned about it.”

Without the benefit of heritage listing, the appeal needed to proceed on the grounds of the proposed development being non-compliant with the Low Density Residential zoning of the area and being inconsistent with the expectations of the community.

Without the benefit of heritage listing the appeal needed to proceed on the grounds of the proposed development being non-compliant with the Low Density Residential zoning of the area and being inconsistent with the expectations of the community.

All of the 18 public submissions provided to council in the development application process were opposed to the development, citing the heritage value, beauty and unique character of the historical home.

The Planning and Environment Court order approving the application gave conditions addressing the appellants’ concerns about the impact of the development on the neighbourhood, including the installation of unobtrusive lighting, noise-barrier fencing and a minimum of 18 car spaces to minimise the need for on-street parking.

Ms Grassick said while she did not think that the appeal was likely to be successful from the outset, it was “worth a try” in the hope that Uniland Investments would recognise the community opposition to the development.

“I think it was worth a try because … we were hoping that the developers would say ‘it’s obvious that people don’t want us to do this here’,” she said.

“I’m sure there are plenty of other places where they could have built it which wouldn’t have been so obnoxious.”

Ms Grassick said Consuelo’s fate was sealed in February by council’s approval of the development application, which was a “missed opportunity” to demonstrate council’s commitment to heritage preservation after the demolition of the Anzac Pool.

Ms Grassick said Council's approval of the development application was a “missed opportunity” to demonstrate their commitment to heritage preservation after the demolition of the Anzac Pool.

“Everyone knew that the council had agreed to the development, and the council will get its way,” she said.

“This was an instance where they could have done the right thing, and the residents would have would have been very proud of them for it.

“They’ve missed that opportunity, and in conjunction with what they did with the pool just last year they had a chance to redeem themselves.

“They’re very out of touch.”

Angela Lathouras from Bundaberg Regional Heritage Group said while she was encouraged by recent moves by council to improve heritage protections in recognition of the wishes of the community, it was “unfortunate” that this had to come at the expense of important historical buildings.

Angela Lathouras from Bundaberg Regional Heritage Group said while she is encouraged by recent moves by council to improve heritage protections in response to the wishes of the community, it is “unfortunate” that this has come at the expense of important historical buildings.

In June, Mayor Jack Dempsey announced a $100,000 fund towards supporting owners of local heritage buildings and main street character areas.

“In the past, heritage clearly has not been a priority for this council, but in recent months in the wake of the demolition of Anzac Memorial Pool, and now the loss of Consuelo we can see that the council has recognised that the community feel very strongly about the history and the heritage of Bundaberg,” Ms Lathouras said.

Journalist harassed by home invader for story on meth dealer

“Unfortunately these moves have had to come at the loss of places of significant heritage value.”

Group Manager Development for Bundaberg Regional Council Michael Ellery said council was bound by the court order to approve the development, and was unable to take any further action to halt its progress given the appeal was dismissed with the agreement of all parties.

Mr Ellery said Consuelo was not identified as having local heritage significance in reports commissioned by the council following the adoption of the Bundaberg Regional Planning Scheme in 2015.

“The heritage places included in the planning scheme were identified as part of a series of reports prepared by local heritage consultants Converge and Community,” Mr Ellery said.

“The dwelling on 210 George St, Bundaberg West was not identified as a place of local heritage significance in any of these reports and is not listed on any heritage register at either local, state or national level.”

Originally published as Planning and Environment Court dismisses Consuelo appeal