A proposed $375 million development in Queen Street Brisbane by WOHA and Architectus, approved by the Brisbane City Council, faces a legal challenge from the University of Queensland (UQ), which is contesting the approval on heritage grounds.
The council gave the 47-storey Queen Street development the green light on 22 December 2015 without public notification. UQ is challenging the decision based on the provisions of the City Plan 2014, which states that developments at the site at 443 Queen Street require a 25-metre setback to protect Customs House’s heritage value, the university said in a statement.
“The proposed high-rise would dwarf and completely overshadow Customs House, and the impact of its disproportionate height would be exacerbated by the 2.6 metre setback from the Customs House boundary,” said Professor Høj, vice chancellor and president of UQ.
“It’s a stark contrast to the 25-metre setback expressly required by the BCC’s own planning scheme.”
Developer Cbus Property had also applied to transfer development rights from a heritage-listed property it owns at the corner of Queen and Creek streets onto the property in question.
“The application triggered code assessment procedures [which don’t require public notification] adding transferable development rights to the site,” a spokesman for Lord Mayor Graham Quirk told the Brisbane Times. “This town-planning provision allows building height development potential to be transferred between sites within the same area of the city centre.”
The council’s approval has angered UQ, which owns and operates the heritage-listed Customs House to the south of the development.
Peter Høj said the approval is a travesty that threatens the integrity of a significant and historic city landmark.
In its submission to the court, the university alleged the approval was “unlawful,” claiming the intention of transferable development rights was to protect and preserve heritage sites.
“The effect of the purported approval is to subvert, rather than comply with, the stated intent and express assessment criteria of the planning scheme,” the submission read.
UQ is no stranger to transferable development rights. Brisbane City Council points out the university transferred its rights from the heritage-listed Brisbane Arcade, which UQ owns, onto its other properties in the city.
The University of Queensland, which owns Customs House, has launched a legal challenge against the 443 Queen Street development designed by WOHA and Architectus.
Queensland Heritage Council has also joined the chorus of opposition against the development. Its chairman Peter Coaldrake said the development was “out of scale and too close to Customs House.”
“Particular concern is being expressed to the effect that the provisions of the City Centre Neighbourhood Plan may have been set aside to the disadvantage of the Customs House,” Coaldrake wrote in a letter to Lord Mayor Graham Quirk.
However, the Lord Mayor claims the council has taken the heritage preservation concerns into account in its approval of the development.
“Part of the approval was a six-storey podium and, for people walking along Queen Street, that means that there will be better views both from Customs House itself and from the frontage,” he told the Brisbane Times.
The podium levels, which are designed to match the height of the adjacent Customs House, will be open to pedestrian traffic between the city and the river.
“There will be better views through to the river, better views through to the Story Bridge. All of those provisions have been built in to the application approval,” Quirk said.
UQ restored Customs House with money generated through a public fundraising effort. The building was restored to near original condition and reopened in 1994.
Court proceedings began against the Brisbane City Council in Queensland’s Planning and Environment Court on Friday 29 January 2016.
[Correction: 26 July 2016: An earlier version of this article incorrectly paraphrased a section of the original statement from the University of Queensland, which has now been quoted in full in paragraphs 3 and 4 above. ArchitectureAU apologises for this inaccuracy.]
