Demolition proposal for New Farm cottage heads to court

The potential demolition of a pre-1911 New Farm cottage has gone to court over a dispute on whether the tear-down should be subject to community input or assessed purely against planning codes.

The property, zoned mixed-use and comprised of two side-by-side buildings and an outbuilding at 23 Kent Street, was purchased by Stuart Ellis in late 2019.

23 Kent Street in New Farm, a pre-1911 cottage.

In late 2020, he applied to Brisbane City Council for approval to demolish the buildings, which had been uninhabited for years.

Assessment reports supplied to the council said the buildings were seriously unsound, with termite-eaten foundations, water damage in the ceiling and internal walls, "severely rotted" weatherboard walls and asbestos sheeting.

"The buildings are structurally unsound and therefore unsafe, are laid out in a manner that prevents casual surveillance, are an entrapment location, and cannot be secured to restrict access," a report presented to the council said.

"The buildings are therefore deemed to present a safety issue to surrounding properties and the wider community."

The property, originally used as a convenience store and tucked behind the Brunswick Hotel, was also reported to be sinking on one side, with one building sinking away from the other.

The reports concluded the work needed to get the cottage structurally sound would reach a "substantial" estimated cost of $220,000, not including work to bring the building up to a liveable standard such as installing a new kitchen, bathroom and other living requirements.

In October, the council acknowledged the application for demolition and noted that public notification would be required for at least 15 business days as the application was impact assessible.

Development applications are typically either code assessable or impact assessible: the latter meaning the council must take into account public opinion on a development, and the former meaning the application is assessed against legislation only.

The rear of the property, showing the outbuilding.

Planners Murray Bell wrote to the council on behalf of Mr Ellis in December, noting the council viewed the application as impact assessible and requiring the 15 days public notification.

The letter argued that, having submitted updated structural engineering reports that gave the council more information and complied with planning codes, the demolition should not be subject to public input.

"Accordingly, we request council issue an amended Confirmation Notice confirming the development need not be subject to public notification," the letter concluded.

On January 19, Mr Ellis lodged an appeal with the Planning Court, requesting the court order the council to assess the demolition application against the code, rather than as an impact assessment.

"... The development application must be subject to code assessment," the appeal says.

"Notwithstanding, [council] maintains that the development application must be subject to impact assessment."

Council has not yet responded to the court appeal. A directions hearing is set for February 10.