Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCA
  3. 2022
  4. Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council - [2022] QCA 6

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  •  Notable Unreported Decision
  • Appeal Determined (QCA)

Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council[2022] QCA 6

Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council[2022] QCA 6

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2022] QCA 6

PARTIES:

DEVELOPMENT WATCH INC

(applicant)

v

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL

(first respondent)

SH COOLUM PTY LTD

ACN 146 376 972

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8019 of 2020
DC No D166 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Planning and Environment Court Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court at Maroochydore – [2020] QPEC 25  (Kefford DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 March 2021

JUDGES:

Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Burns J

ORDERS:

  1. Grant leave to appeal.
  2. Allow the appeal.
  3. Set aside the decision of the Planning and Environment Court made on 15 June 2020 in Appeal No. D166 of 2018 to dismiss the appeal and to approve the development application, subject to conditions.
  4. The parties are directed to file and serve written submissions (not to exceed five pages) regarding:
    1. the terms on which each contends the case should be remitted to the Planning and Environment Court to be determined according to law; and
    2. the appropriate order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING – PLANNING SCHEMES AND INSTRUMENTS – QUEENSLAND – GENERALLY – where the primary judge constituting the Planning and Environment Court dismissed two submitter appeals against the respondent Council’s decision to approve an application for mixed use development in the Sunshine Coast region – where, under the relevant planning scheme, the height of buildings and structures in the proposed development was required to be consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community – where, under the relevant planning scheme, regard was to be had to properly made community submissions about the proposed development – where there was a considerable number of properly made community submissions opposing the proposed development on grounds including the height of the buildings and structures in the proposed development – whether the primary judge erred in law by failing to have proper regard to the community submissions opposing the development because of the proposed height of buildings and structures – whether the judge erred in law by failing to find what the reasonable expectations of the local community were regarding the height of buildings and structures in the proposed development – where the relevant planning scheme had been amended by the time of the appeal to the Planning and Environment Court – whether the primary judge erred in law by deciding not to consider the version of the planning scheme current at the time of the appeal

Planning Act 2016 (Qld), s 45(2), s 60(3), s 63, s 64, s 311
Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), s 43, s 45, s 47
Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld), reg 31(1)(f), reg 31(1)(g)
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld)

Abeleda v Brisbane City Council (2020) 6 QR 441; [2020] QCA 257, cited

Acland Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Rosalie Shire Council [2008] QPELR 342; [2007] QPEC 112, cited

Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council [2019] QPELR 793; [2019] QPEC 16, cited

Baptist Union of Queensland v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2003] QPELR 61; [2002] QPEC 41, cited

Bell v Brisbane City Council & Ors (2018) 230 LGERA 374; [2018] QCA 84, cited

Brisbane City Council v Klinkert (2019) 236 LGERA 88; [2019] QCA 40, cited

Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2021] QPELR 987; [2020] QCA 253, cited

Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478; [2002] HCA 22, cited

Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd (2019) 239 LGERA 409; [2019] QCA 132, cited

HA Bachrach Pty Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council (1992) 80 LGERA 230; [1992] QCA 384, cited

Isgro v Gold Coast City Council [2003] QPELR 414; [2003] QPEC 2, cited

Menz v Wagga Wagga Show Society Inc (2020) 103 NSWLR 103; [2020] NSWCA 65, cited

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40, cited

Nolan v Clifford (1904) 1 CLR 429; [1904] HCA 15, cited

Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) Pty Ltd (2020) 3 QR 494; [2020] QCA 41, cited

Savage v Cairns Regional Council (2016) 214 LGERA 192; [2016] QCA 103, cited

Wattlevilla Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council & Anor [2015] QPELR 21; [2014] QPEC 47, cited

COUNSEL:

J M Horton QC, with A N Skoien, for the applicant
C L Hughes QC, with M J Batty and H M Stephanos, for the first respondent
D R Gore QC, with J D Houston, for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ray Barber Solicitor for the applicant
Sunshine Coast Regional Council Legal Services for the first respondent
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the second respondent

  1. [1]
    MORRISON JA:  I agree with the reasons prepared by Burns J and the orders his Honour proposes.
  2. [2]
    McMURDO JA:  I have the advantage of having read the judgment of Burns J, in which the relevant evidence and reasoning of the primary judge, together with the arguments in this Court, are set out.  I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour and wish to add only the following.
  3. [3]
    The primary judge had to assess the proposed development against the assessment benchmarks in the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014.[1]  This included the requirements of the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Code (the Code).  The purpose of the Code was expressed to be the protection of the distinctive character and amenity of the Sunshine Coast as a place with a predominantly low to medium rise built form.[2]  The Code provided that this purpose was to be achieved through three “overall outcomes”.[3]  Those outcomes are set out at paragraph [22] in the judgment of Burns J.  They were related but distinct outcomes, each of which had to be achieved.
  4. [4]
    The Code also specified “performance outcomes”, the achievement of which would result in the achievement of the overall outcomes, and thereby fulfill the purpose of the Code.  However, as the primary judge held, the performance outcomes were not the only means of achieving that result.  Her Honour correctly held that under the Code, in its terms in the planning scheme against which the development was to be considered, there was no requirement that every building or other structure should be no higher than 8.5 metres.
  5. [5]
    The applicants put in issue the satisfaction of two of the overall outcomes.  The first was that the development would contribute to the retention of the preferred built form character for the Sunshine Coast, and the local plan area in which it would occur.  The second was that the height of the buildings and structures was consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community.  There is no challenge to the judge’s finding that the first of those outcomes would be achieved.  At the core of the applicant’s case in this Court are complaints of errors in considering the development’s compliance with the second outcome.
  6. [6]
    On this issue, more was required than an assessment of whether any development with a building or structure in excess of 8.5 metres in height would be beyond the reasonable expectations of the local community.  What was required was an assessment of whether the buildings and structures proposed by this development would be within those expectations.
  7. [7]
    The finding which was most relevant to this question was in the primary judgment at [302], where her Honour said that:

“[The community] should also reasonably expect a development, such as proposed here, may be approved if it has a height of greater than two storeys but complies with the character and amenity requirements of the Planning Scheme.”

In my respectful opinion however, that did not answer the question which the judge had to consider, namely whether the height of the buildings and structures in this development exceeded the reasonable expectations of the community.  The same error is evident from her Honour’s reasoning, later in the judgment,[4] that it would be reasonable for the community to expect, having regard to the Hyatt preliminary approval, that development might be approved above 8.5 metres in height, and beyond a height of four storeys.

  1. [8]
    Further, as Burns J has explained, the primary judge erred in law in failing to consider whether any weight should be given to the content of the equivalent code in the 2018 planning scheme.
  2. [9]
    It follows that there was no consideration, according to law, of the question of whether the proposed development complied with the planning scheme, in so far as its compliance with the Code was concerned.  It cannot be thought that this was immaterial to the outcome of the case, notwithstanding the many other issues upon which the present respondents succeeded.  In particular, a need for the development, according to the judge’s findings which contain no legal error, would have an importance which would vary depending upon whether there was a countervailing consideration of an inconsistency with an important element of the planning scheme.
  3. [10]
    BURNS J:  This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Planning and Environment Court to dismiss a submitter appeal brought by the applicant, Development Watch Inc, and to approve an application to develop a parcel of land on the Sunshine Coast subject to several amended conditions.[5]
  4. [11]
    One of the assessment benchmarks incorporated in the planning scheme by which the development application fell to be assessed was a Height of buildings and structures overlay code. Its purpose was “to protect the distinctive character and amenity of the Sunshine Coast as a place with a predominantly low to medium-rise built form”. The code prescribed how this was to be achieved and, relevantly, this meant that the proposed development had to meet a number of “overall outcomes”, one of which was that the height of buildings and structures be consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community.[6]
  5. [12]
    In the course of dismissing appeals brought by Development Watch and another submitter, and approving the development application, the learned primary judge determined that the proposed development complied with the code and, of importance to this application for leave to appeal, her Honour was satisfied that the height of the proposed buildings and structures was consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community. Of relevance also to the leave application was her Honour’s finding that there was a planning need for the development. By the proposed appeal, Development Watch seeks to argue that her Honour’s conclusions in both respects were affected by errors of law warranting this Court’s intervention.

Background

  1. [13]
    The parcel of land that is the subject of the development application is located between David Low Way and Yaroomba Beach, a couple of kilometres from Coolum Beach. It occupies 18.5 hectares and was once part of the land holdings associated with the resort known as the Hyatt Regency Resort and, more recently, as the Palmer Coolum Resort.
  2. [14]
    The land has a history of planning approvals dating back to the 1980s. Of particular importance to this application was a preliminary approval granted by the first respondent, Sunshine Coast Regional Council, in February 2007 which for ease of reference I shall refer to as the 2007 Approval. It had the effect of varying the then current planning scheme to establish the Coolum Hyatt Integrated Resort and Residential Community and it was in force when the subject development application was lodged. That remained the position at the time when the appeal was heard in the court below.
  3. [15]
    The development application was lodged with the Council on 4 May 2017 on behalf of the owner, being the second respondent to this application, SH Coolum Pty Ltd. Public notification took place between November of that year and January of the next and over 12,000 submissions were received. In response to those submissions, a notice of change of development application was lodged with the Council on behalf of SH Coolum that significantly reduced the residential density under the proposal. Otherwise, it was planned that the land be developed over five stages, with the first stage involving the construction of a five-star resort incorporating a hotel, a shopping centre, multiple dwellings and associated facilities. These uses were proposed to be accommodated in a number of buildings, between five and seven storeys in height.  Stages 2 to 5 were not laid out in detail but approval was sought to vary the effect of the categorising instrument[7] so that future applications to develop the balance of the land for a mix of residential dwellings (including houses and dual occupancy dwellings at two storeys in height and multiple dwelling units in buildings up to four storeys in height) would not be subject to the public notification process.
  4. [16]
    The Council approved the application on 21 June 2018. As part of that approval, preliminary approval was granted for a material change of use to establish the Yaroomba Beach Master Plan along with development permits for Stage 1 by which a material change of use in the form of a 220-room hotel, shopping centre, 148 dwellings or places of short-term accommodation, an educational establishment, community use amenities and a utility installation were authorised as well as the reconfiguration of a lot.
  5. [17]
    Two community organisation submitters, one of which was Development Watch,[8] subsequently appealed to the Planning and Environment Court. Their appeals were heard over three weeks in late 2019 with further evidence and written submissions advanced in March and April of the following year.
  6. [18]
    Although SH Coolum’s development application was made under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), the submitter appeals were filed after the commencement of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) and, as such, the governing regime is to be sourced from the latter statute.[9] The Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) of course also applied to the appeals. Accordingly, the court was tasked to confirm the decision appealed against, change the decision appealed against, or set it aside and either make a decision replacing it or return the matter to the Council with such directions as the court considered appropriate.[10] The appeals were by way of hearing anew,[11] with the onus being on SH Coolum to establish that they should be dismissed.[12]

The planning scheme

  1. [19]
    Section 45 of the Planning Act applied to the court’s decision on the appeals as if the court was the assessment manager for the development application.[13] That provision specifies that a categorising instrument states the category of assessment that must be carried out for the development.[14] The expression, “categorising instrument”, is defined in s 43(1) of the Planning Act to be a regulation or “local categorising instrument” that: (a) categorises development as prohibited, assessable or accepted development; (b) specifies the categories of assessment required for different types of assessable development; and/or (c) sets out the matters that an assessment manager must assess assessable development against. The expression, “local categorising instrument”, is further defined to include a planning scheme: s 43(3). Furthermore, it is provided that a regulation made under s 43(1) applies instead of a local categorising instrument to the extent of any inconsistency (s 43(4)) and no matter when the regulation and local categorising instrument commenced in relation to each other: s 43(8).
  2. [20]
    In this case, the local categorising instrument was the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014. It specified that the development in prospect was impact assessable and, by virtue of s 45(5) of the Planning Act, this meant that any assessment: (1) must be carried out against the assessment benchmarks in the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014 to the extent relevant; (2) must be carried out having regard to any matters prescribed by regulation; and (3) may be carried out against, or having regard to, any other relevant matter, other than a person’s personal circumstances. As to (2), and more generally as the overriding “categorising instrument”, reg 31 of the Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld) relevantly provides that the impact assessment must be carried out having regard to any development approval for, and any lawful use of, the premises or adjacent premises[15] – here, the 2007 Approval – as well as the “common material”.[16] The expression, “common material”, is defined in Schedule 24 to the Planning Regulation to mean all of the material about the application that is received before the application is decided, including “any properly made submissions about the application”.[17]
  3. [21]
    At the time when the development application was lodged with the Council, the version of the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme in force was Version 8. Of importance to this leave application, s 5.3.3 of that version set out rules to be followed in determining the assessment criteria for each level of assessment. The rules contemplated compliance through the “purpose and overall outcomes” specified in each applicable code or by specified “performance outcomes” or “acceptable outcomes” complying with the purpose and overall outcomes of the relevant code. In the case of impact assessable developments, these were required to be “assessed against all identified code(s) in the assessment criteria column (where relevant)” and the planning scheme, to the extent relevant.[18] In this case, one of the codes identified in the assessment criteria column was the Height of buildings and structures overlay code and it was set out in s 8.2.8 of Version 8.
  4. [22]
    Section 8.2.8.2 of Version 8 was then in these terms:

“8.2.8.2 Purpose and overall outcomes

  1. (1)
     The purpose of the Height of buildings and structures overlay code is to protect the distinctive character and amenity of the Sunshine Coast as a place with a predominantly low to medium-rise built form.
  1. (2)
     The purpose of the Height of the buildings and structures overlay code will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:-
  1. (a)
     development contributes to the retention of the preferred built form character for the Sunshine Coast, and the local plan area in which it occurs;
  1. (b)
     the height of the buildings and structures is consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community; and
  1. (c)
     development does not result in a significant loss of amenity for surrounding development, having regard to:-
  1. (i)
     the extent and duration of any overshadowing;
  1. (ii)
     privacy and overlooking impacts;
  1. (iii)
     impacts upon views;
  1. (iv)
     building character and appearance; and
  1. (v)
     building massing and scale relative to its surroundings.”
  1. [23]
    Next came the assessment criteria, set out in tabular form as part of s 8.2.8.3. Under the heading, “Maximum Height of Buildings and Structures”, performance outcome PO1 was stated to be that the “height of a building or structure does not exceed the maximum height specified on a Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map” save for a number of exceptions that have no application in this case. No acceptable outcome was provided. The predominant maximum height on the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map OVM11H for the local plan area was 8.5 metres,[19] although some of the land had a height limit of 12 metres[20] (near Coolum Beach) and an area with existing buildings of four storeys had a limit of 16 metres.[21]
  2. [24]
    By the time of the hearing of the appeals in the court below, the version of the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme in force was Version 18. Section 5.3.3 had been amended in a number of respects that do not bear on this application and PO1 in the table to s 8.2.3.1 was not materially different to the provision that appeared in Version 8. Critically, though, s 8.2.8.2 had been amended to add two new overall outcomes:

“8.2.8.2 Purpose and overall outcomes

  1. (1)
     The purpose of the Height of buildings and structures overlay code is to protect the distinctive character and amenity of the Sunshine Coast as a place with a predominantly low to medium-rise built form.
  1. (2)
     The purpose of the Height of buildings and structures overlay code will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:-
  1. (a)
     development provides for the height of buildings and structures to comply with specified height limits except where explicitly provided for in this code;
  1. (b)
     development contributes to the retention of the preferred built form character for the Sunshine Coast, and the local plan area in which it occurs;
  1. (c)
     the height of buildings and structures is consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community;
  1. (d)
     development on a site within a flooding and inundation area, as identified on a Flood Hazard Overlay Map, is afforded an allowance for additional maximum height so as to minimise the risk to people and property; and
  1. (e)
     development does not result in a significant loss of amenity for surrounding development, having regard to:-
  1. (i)
     the extent and duration of any overshadowing;
  1. (ii)
     privacy and overlooking impacts;
  1. (iii)
     impacts upon views;
  1. (iv)
     building character and appearance; and
  1. (v)
     building massing and scale relative to its surroundings.” [Emphasis in original]
  1. [25]
    It will be seen that subparagraphs (2)(a) and (d) are new additions. Subparagraph (2)(d) obviously has no bearing on this case but (2)(a) does because of what is provided in sub-ss 45(7) and (8) of the Planning Act. As to that, although some exceptions to the Height of buildings and structures overlay code appear in PO1, again, none of them apply to the subject land. As such, subparagraph (2)(a) of Version 18 must be understood as adding an overall outcome to comply with the height limit specified in the code as part of the way in which the purpose of the code was required to be achieved.
  2. [26]
    Subsections (7) and (8) of s 45 of the Planning Act provide as follows:

“(7) The assessment manager must assess the development application against or having regard to the statutory instrument, or other document, as in effect when the development application was properly made.

  1. (8)
     However, the assessment manager may give the weight the assessment manager considers is appropriate, in the circumstances, to—
  1. (a)
     if the statutory instrument or other document is amended or replaced after the development application is properly made but before it is decided by the assessment manager—the amended or replacement instrument or document; or
  1. (b)
     another statutory instrument—
  1. (i)
     that comes into effect after the development application is properly made but before it is decided by the assessment manager; and
  1. (ii)
     that the assessment manager would have been required to assess, or could have assessed, the development application against, or having regard to, if the instrument had been in effect when the application was properly made.” [Emphasis added]
  1. [27]
    These provisions are clear in their effect. The development application must be assessed “against or having regard to” Version 8 of the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014,[22] but a discretion is conferred on the assessment manager (and, on appeal, the Planning and Environment Court) to give Version 18 such weight as is considered appropriate.[23]

The relevant findings of the primary judge

  1. [28]
    Although Development Watch raised a host of issues for determination in the court below, the attack on the decision of the primary judge in this Court was a narrow one. Of the proposed grounds of appeal that were pressed in oral argument,[24] its challenge was very much focussed on the primary judge’s finding that the development complied with Version 8 of the Height of buildings and structures overlay code and, as a necessary part of this finding, that overall outcome 2(b) was achieved, that is to say, that the height of the proposed buildings and structures was consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community.
  2. [29]
    As to this, Development Watch argued in the court below that there was non-compliance with the purpose specified in s 8.2.8.2(1), overall outcomes (2)(a) and (b) and performance outcome PO1.  Among the submissions made in that regard was a contention that the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map OVM11H “mandates a maximum height of 8.5 metres across the site”,[25] but the primary judge rejected that submission, finding instead that the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map OVM11H had to be considered in the context of the provisions of the planning scheme that call it in aid, that is to say, the Height of buildings and structures overlay code.[26] Her Honour observed that the purpose in s 8.2.8.2(1) was to be achieved through the overall outcomes, none of which called “up the mapping on the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map”.[27] Instead, the “map is only called into operation by performance outcomes PO1 and PO2”.[28] Her Honour recognised that the proposed development did not comply with performance outcome PO1 and formally found that none of the exceptions to performance outcome PO1 applied to the subject land. However, her Honour observed that “the development can achieve compliance with the overlay code if it complies with the overall outcomes”.[29] None of these findings or propositions were challenged in this Court.
  3. [30]
    The primary judge then turned to a consideration of the overall outcomes. Earlier in the judgment, her Honour reviewed the expert and other evidence about the design of the proposed development and the extent to which it might maintain the local plan area as a low-key coastal urban community, before concluding that it “appropriately reflects the character of the area” and complies with the character requirement in, relevantly, overall outcome (2)(a).[30] Her Honour also reviewed the evidence on the question whether the proposed development complied with the relevant design requirements of the local plan area and found that it did.[31] Referring back to those analyses, her Honour was satisfied that the proposed development complied with overall outcome (2)(a).[32]
  4. [31]
    As to overall outcome (2)(b) and its specification that the height of buildings and structures in the proposed development be “consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community”,[33] the primary judge set out observations made in three decisions of the Planning and Environment Court to the effect that the expectations of the local community, to be reasonable, must be assessed in light of all of the planning provisions applying to the land.[34] After adopting those observations, her Honour continued:

“[301] In this case, the Appellants provided copies of many submissions that they say are representative of the majority of submissions opposed to the proposed development. Numerous local residents also gave statements. Some of them were cross-examined. Although I am satisfied that the concerns of the local residents about the impact of the proposed development are genuinely held, the other evidence does not support them. Their expectations are out of step with the effect of the Planning Scheme when read as a whole. For example, many assume that the Planning Scheme requires development on the subject land be no higher than two storeys or 8.5 metres.

[302] Further, having regard to the independent evidence referred to in paragraphs [180] to [264] above, in an objective sense the concerns of the local residents can be discounted. They are not evidence of reasonable expectations. The residents could reasonably have in mind that the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map OVM11H shows the subject land as subject to a height parameter of two storeys. However, they should also reasonably expect that development, such as that proposed here, may be approved if it has a height of greater than two storeys but complies with the character and amenity requirements of the Planning Scheme.

[303] For those reasons, I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with the Height of buildings and structures overlay code.”[35]

  1. [32]
    Later in the judgment, the primary judge discussed the submissions in more detail, but for a different, and more general, reason. This was to deal with a contention on the part of the appellant submitters that the nature and extent of community opposition to the proposed development was an important consideration given the provisions of the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme that seek to preserve the individual identity of local communities. Her Honour said this:

“[421] The proposed development was publicly notified on two occasions. The first period of public notification commenced on 23 October 2017. The second commenced on 16 November 2017 following an error in the first round of public notification. During the public notification periods, a total of 12 306 submissions were received in respect of the development application. Of those, 11 666 were considered by the Council to be properly made submissions.

[422] Mr Schomburgk analysed the submissions and provided his analysis at Attachment G of the Joint Experts’ Report – Town Planning. His analysis was not challenged. Further, exhibit 39 contains an analysis of the submissions received from the second round of public notification, which the parties agree to be a fair analysis of those submissions. There are some discrepancies in the numbers in that exhibit, which can be attributed to cataloguing and counting the larger volume of submissions received.

[423] It is clear that there is strong public interest in the development application the subject of the appeal. Both Mr Schomburgk’s analysis and the analysis in exhibit 39 demonstrate that public opinion on the proposed development is divided. Each of the parties tendered a selection of the submissions that they regarded as representative of the broader submissions in support of their respective positions in the appeal.

[424] The majority of the submissions were received from addresses within Queensland, and largely from addresses within the Sunshine Coast local government area. In the second round of public notification, there were 6 704 submissions in opposition to the proposed development and 1 948 submission[s] in support received from addresses on the Sunshine Coast.

[425] A large percentage of the submissions received were in the form of proforma submissions. There were a number of types of proformas, both in support and in opposition to the proposed development. Out of the total submissions received, 7 934 were in the form of proforma submissions. There were 28 percent of the proforma submissions that were in support of the proposed development and 72 percent in opposition.

[426] The remainder of the submissions were identified as individual submissions. Of the 3 609 individual submissions received, 3 104 (or 86 per cent) were in opposition to the proposed development and 505 (or 14 per cent) were in support.

[427] There were a number of common themes of concern that were expressed by the community in the submissions. They related to the proposed development’s perceived inappropriateness in terms of its height and density; traffic; creation of a precedent in the area; balance between tourism and residential uses; impact on endangered species, particularly the loggerhead turtle; absence of need for the proposed development; impacts on character and scenic amenity; and conflicts with the Planning Scheme. The lay witness statements tendered by the First Appellant raised similar concerns.

[428] Although the number of objections to a development application is relevant, of greater significance is the substance of the objections and the basis upon which they are founded.

[429] Here, I am prepared to assume that the submissions, and those lay witnesses, who gave evidence, were genuine in their objection to the proposed development. However, to be deserving of considerable weight the objections must be soundly based.

[430] A number of the submissions were misguided. Examples include submissions to the effect that the development application ‘threatens the integrity of the planning process on the Sunshine Coast’; the development application would encourage others to apply for development that is ‘at odds’ with the Planning Scheme; and an approval would put a developer’s profit before the local community. The content of the submissions opposed to the development and the lay witness statements tendered by the Appellants otherwise, in large measure, mirrored the case run by the Appellants.

[431] I am not persuaded that I should refuse the proposed development by reference to the submissions in opposition to it and the lay witness statements tendered by the Appellants for reasons provided herein with respect to each of the other issues in dispute.”[36] [References omitted; emphasis in original]

  1. [33]
    The issue of community expectations regarding height next arose when the primary judge came to consider the significance of the 2007 Approval. After observing that the planning discretion had to be based on an assessment that is carried out having regard to the 2007 Approval,[37] her Honour continued:

“[518] The [2007 Approval] includes development across a number of precincts, relevantly including Precincts 1C, 3C, 3D, part of 3E, 3F and part of 3H (buffer precinct). These are the precincts that most closely align with the subject land. The uses provided for within these precincts include:

  1. (a)
     non-residential uses, including restaurant, shop and outdoor recreation up to a maximum of 500 square metres; and
  1. (b)
     residential uses comprising a mix of dwelling types, including multiple dwellings, detached houses and duplexes.

[519] The form of development that could occur on the subject land is usefully depicted in Figure 1 of Exhibit 21. It is also graphically depicted on the last page of Exhibit 82, which graphically depicts the likely extent of built form when viewed from the type of aerial oblique view one would get from Mt Coolum. The extent of development facilitated by the [2007 Approval] is significant.

[520] The subject land is located within part of the ‘Beachside’ precinct (Precinct 3) in the [2007 Approval]. That precinct also included land to the south of the subject land. In that precinct, the [2007 Approval] allowed a maximum density of 450 dwellings across the precinct. The southern portion of the precinct, to the south of the subject land, has been developed predominately for detached houses of two storeys in height. That development is known as ‘Coolum Beachside’ and ‘Belle Mare’. It provides approximately 110 dwellings. The [2007 Approval] also authorised units within sub-precinct 3F, which is located within the subject land. In that sub-precinct, the approval authorised 140 dwelling units and buildings up to 16 metres and four storeys in height.

[521] All of the sub-precincts within Precinct 3, except for 3F, allowed for 20 per cent of dwellings to be multiple dwellings (units) of up to three storeys, and allowed for a further 20 per cent of dwellings to be dual occupancy, leaving the remainder of the sub-precincts (60 per cent) to be comprised of detached houses.

[522] The development of Coolum Beachside with a predominance of detached houses of two storeys in height informs expectations about the likely development of the remainder of Precinct 3 under the [2007 Approval], given the approval contemplated up to 40 per cent of the development being other than detached houses.

[523] Having regard to the [2007 Approval], the community could reasonably expect that development of the subject land would include residential and non-residential uses. The community could also reasonably expect that the residential development would include accommodation other than detached dwellings, being dual occupancies and multiple dwellings, and that some of the residential development might be above 8.5 metres in height (despite the mapping on the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map).

[524] The Appellants submit that the proposed development is a much greater scale than that contemplated in the [2007 Approval]. I agree. However, it is not reasonable for the community to expect that the extent of development of the subject land will be limited to that approved in the [2007 Approval]. The [2007 Approval] was granted about 12 years ago and the planning needs of a community are not static and immutable. It is reasonable for the community to expect that the subject land might be developed for a more intensive form of development where it complies with the assessment benchmarks that apply at the time the development application is made and meets an identified need, as the proposed development does.”[38]

  1. [34]
    Lastly, the primary judge considered whether approval of the proposed development was in the public interest. Her Honour recorded, consistently with authority,[39] that a flexible approach to the assessment of the proposal was required and that “not every non-compliance is contrary to public interest or will warrant refusal”.[40] Her Honour then précised the submissions made by the Council to the effect that approval of the proposed development was consistent with the public interest. These submissions were then adopted by her Honour as reflecting a “fair summary of my findings set out in the reasons above”.[41] One of the Council’s submissions adopted by the primary judge was summarised as follows:

“[548] [A]lthough the proposed development is inconsistent with the maximum height shown on the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map, the built form of the proposed development is otherwise compliant with the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme. The exceedance of the standard shown on the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map does not result in an unacceptable departure from the Planning Scheme as there is an absence of visual amenity (and any other) impacts arising from the height. It also facilitates the satisfaction of the economic and planning need for a five-star resort hotel with conference facilities, while satisfying the relevant planning provisions regarding landscaping and open space.”[42]

The proposed appeal

  1. [35]
    An appeal from a decision of the Planning and Environment Court is by leave and may be brought only on grounds of error or mistake in law or jurisdictional error.[43] Development Watch argued that leave should be granted because the decision below was affected by several errors identified in a draft (and revised) notice of appeal. To justify a grant of leave, it is not sufficient to demonstrate an arguable error of law; the error must be material in the sense that it could have materially affected the decision at first instance.[44]

The proposed grounds

  1. [36]
    The draft notice of appeal contains three grounds of appeal, the first and second of which are related because they both concern the primary judge’s finding that the proposed development complied with the Height of buildings and structures overlay code and, in particular, that the height of the proposed buildings and structures was consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community. By the third ground, Development Watch seeks to argue that the primary judge erred by misunderstanding the evidence about a planning need for the development and misapplied the onus of proof in that respect.

Proposed grounds 1 and 2 – the finding that the development complied with the Height of buildings and structures overlay code

  1. [37]
    By the first ground, Development Watch seeks to argue that the primary judge failed to pay proper regard to the community submissions opposing the development, dismissing them instead as being “misguided”,[45] “not reasonable”[46] and “out of step with the effect of the planning scheme when read as a whole”[47] and consequently erred when determining the “reasonable expectations of the local community” for the purposes of overall outcome 8.2.8.2(2)(b) of Version 8 of the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme. By the second ground, Development Watch would contend that the primary judge misconstrued the requirements of the same overall outcome and, further, failed to take into account, and give significant weight to, the version of the planning scheme current at the time of the appeal i.e., Version 18.
  2. [38]
    It is convenient to first deal with the construction argument.
  3. [39]
    Development Watch submitted that the primary judge misconstrued s 8.2.8.2(2)(b) of Version 8 as importing considerations of character and amenity when that provision was solely concerned to promote consistency between the height of the buildings and structures in the proposed development and the reasonable expectations of the local community.  It was submitted that subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of s 8.2.8.2(2) are cumulative and that paragraph [302] of the judgment below[48] is revealing of an approach whereby the primary judge did not give the subparagraphs separate consideration. In that paragraph, her Honour recorded a finding that the “concerns of the local residents” were not “reasonable expectations” because, in part, although it could reasonably be thought that the Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map showed any development to be subject to a “height parameter of two storeys”, the residents “should also reasonably expect that development … may be approved if it has a height of greater than two storeys but complies with the character and amenity requirements for” the planning scheme. Mr Horton QC, who appeared for Development Watch on this application but not in the court below, contended that this was the wrong approach because the requirements of subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) were “collapsed into each other”[49] when they should have been separately considered. Doing so, he submitted, drew attention away from the need to be satisfied about subparagraph (b) and thereby diluted its importance.
  4. [40]
    Here, the primary judge found that the proposed development complied with the Height of buildings and structures overlay code but, at the same time, recognised that it did not comply with performance outcome PO1. As such, the only remaining route to a finding of compliance with the code required her Honour to be satisfied that the purpose specified in s 8.2.8.2(1) was achieved and that, in turn, depended on her Honour being satisfied about compliance with each of the overall outcomes in s 8.2.8.2(2).
  5. [41]
    There can be no doubt that each subparagraph of s 8.2.8.2(2) required separate consideration and, to the point of Mr Horton’s argument, it would be wrong to meld the consideration of one subparagraph with the others, but that is not what her Honour did. After recording that Development Watch alleged the proposed development did not comply with the purpose specified in (1), overall outcome (2)(a), overall outcome (2)(b) and performance outcome PO1, her Honour dealt in turn with performance outcome PO1, overall outcome (a) and overall outcome (b). Although nothing was expressed about overall outcome (2)(c), there was no issue between the parties about compliance with that subparagraph. Otherwise, her Honour was not under any misapprehension; each of the overall outcomes required separate consideration and each had to be achieved to meet the purpose specified in s 8.2.8.2(1). If her Honour mistakenly thought that achieving just one overall outcome was enough to meet the purpose, there would have been no need to go beyond the finding of compliance with overall outcome (2)(a). It follows that the part of the proposed second ground of appeal which contends that the primary judge misconstrued the provision cannot be accepted although, for reasons to which I will now turn, I am of the opinion that her Honour misunderstood and then misapplied part of that provision.
  6. [42]
    Accepting then as I do that the primary judge gave separate consideration to each of the overall outcomes in s 8.2.8.2(2), it is necessary to look more closely at her Honour’s treatment of overall outcome (b) and, with that, to consider the first proposed ground of appeal and what remains of the second.
  7. [43]
    As to that, the primary judge was of course obliged to consider whether the height of building and structures in the proposed development was consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community. To do so, her Honour was required to first determine what the expectations of the local community were about the height of buildings and structures and once that was done, as her Honour recognised,[50] the reasonableness of those expectations needed to be assessed in light of the planning provisions applying to the subject land. Then, after the reasonable expectations were identified, the extent to which those expectations were consistent with what was proposed for the development had to be determined.
  1. [44]
    At paragraph [301] of the judgment,[51] the primary judge referred to the many submissions received in opposition to the proposed development along with statements from local residents to the same effect, some of whom were cross-examined at the hearing. Then, after accepting that the “concerns of the local residents about the impact of the proposed development” were “genuinely held”, her Honour dismissed all of them as being “out of step with the effect of the planning scheme when read as a whole”. Next, her Honour held that the “concerns of the local residents can be discounted” when regard was had to the “independent evidence” assessed earlier in the judgment with respect to the design of the proposed development and, as part of that, its character and amenity,[52] before expressly finding that the development complied with the Height of buildings and structures overlay code.[53] In my respectful view, this process of reasoning was flawed.
  1. [45]
    First, there was no base to work from because the primary judge did not find what the expectations of the local community were as to the height of buildings and structures in the proposed development. Although her Honour noted substantial opposition to the development and, by implication, concerns about the height of some of the buildings and structures, no finding was made as to the local community’s expectations regarding height. When later in the judgment[54] her Honour discussed the content of the submissions, that was for the purpose of deciding whether the level of community opposition to the development warranted its refusal and, in any event, no finding about height was made. Indeed, the closest her Honour came to expressing a finding about the local community’s expectations regarding height was when the 2007 Approval was discussed.[55] To that point in the judgment, her Honour recorded that the 2007 Approval contemplated buildings of up to two, three and four storeys in height, depending on the part of the land where construction was to occur. After acknowledging that the subject development was much greater in scale than that contemplated in the 2007 Approval, her Honour held that it was not reasonable for the community to expect that the extent of development be limited to that contemplated under that approval because it was granted “about 12 years ago” and, furthermore, the community should reasonably expect that the land “might be developed for a more intensive form of development where it complies with the assessment benchmarks that apply at the time the development application is made and meets an identified need, as the proposed development does”. Beyond that, no specific finding about the local community’s expectations regarding height was made. In the result, all that can be said is that the primary judge expressed the view that the local community ought reasonably expect that a more intensive form of development (than that contemplated under the 2007 Approval) might be approved. Absent any finding as to the expectations of the local community regarding the height of buildings and structures, the reasonableness of the local community’s expectations in light of the planning provisions applying to the subject land could not be assessed, let alone compared to the actual proposal to determine whether the two were consistent. The failure to make such a finding was an error of law.
  2. [46]
    Second, although the planning scheme may be regarded as a prima facie expression of what will constitute, in the public interest, the appropriate development of the land,[56] there was in this case a credible source of evidence as to the expectations of the local community, and a substantial one at that. Indeed, the body of material from the local community in the form of submissions following the public notification process along with the evidence given at the hearing by residents may properly be regarded as the most direct expression of the expectations about which overall outcome (b) of s 8.2.8.2(2) is concerned. In any event, properly made submissions about the development formed part of the common material[57] and, as such, the assessment was required to be carried out having regard to them.[58] There were 11,666 such submissions and, of those, 9,288 (including 3,167 local residents) opposed the development. A large proportion of the opposing submission received were in a pro forma style but there were 16 different variations of those. The height of the proposed development was a recurring ground of objection in virtually all the opposing submissions that were placed before the primary judge. However, although her Honour acknowledged the strength of opposition to the proposal in a general way, no detailed analysis of the content of the submissions appears to have taken place. Indeed, the view seemed to be taken that any submission expressing opposition because of concerns about the height of the development was “out of step with the planning scheme when read as a whole”[59] and was, for that reason, to be disregarded. This is of course the complaint made in support of the first proposed ground of appeal.
  3. [47]
    The problem with such a broad-brush approach is two-fold because it overlooks the need to first determine what the expectations of the local community were concerning the height of any development and gives primacy to the planning scheme to such a degree that it set to nought the evidence sourced from the local community. The court was required to take that evidence into account as part of the common material but that did not occur because any opposition to the proposed development was seen to be trumped by the planning scheme. This was another error of law.
  4. [48]
    Third, and in accordance with the complaint made in what remains to be considered of the proposed second ground of appeal, the primary judge had no regard to the version of the planning scheme current at the time of the appeal. Version 18 not only required the height of buildings and structures to be consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community, it mandated compliance with the specified height limits, that is to say, 8.5 metres. Indeed, as “an expression of a means by which, in the public interest, the scale of any development would be kept in alignment with community expectations”,[60] Version 18 would seem to reflect much of the sentiment expressed in the submissions made in opposition to the development.
  5. [49]
    As earlier discussed,[61] a discretion was conferred on the primary judge to give Version 18 such weight as her Honour considered appropriate.[62] In order to determine whether any weight should be attached to a change in the planning scheme, the change at least had to be considered, but that did not occur because, her Honour ruled, compliance with the changed scheme had not been put in issue in the case. As to that, although no express mention of Version 18 was made in an “Agreed List of Issues for Determination” filed by the parties five days prior to the hearing, it was included among a number of “contextual provisions” in a “List of Planning Scheme Provisions Relevant to Disputed Issues” that was prepared two days later and filed on the first day of hearing. Reference was also made to Version 18 by the town planning experts in their various reports as well as in their joint report where it was stated that the proposed development “clearly departs from this outcome”.[63] There was also some limited evidence from the town planners at the hearing regarding the changed scheme. However, after closing written submissions had been exchanged, the primary judge questioned Development Watch’s reliance on Version 18. Her Honour did not consider that non-compliance with Version 18 had been sufficiently raised as an issue for consideration by the court. This led counsel for Development Watch to make an instanter application for leave to “raise” Version 18 as “a matter to which we would ask your Honour to have regard”.[64] That application was opposed by both respondents who claimed that they were taken by surprise and would be prejudiced if leave was granted. Her Honour refused the application, remarking that the “parties are entitled not to be taken by surprise”, that extensive case management steps had been taken to ensure that such a thing did not occur, that it would be causative of prejudice and that such an issue should not be “added at this late stage”.[65] In the result, the only treatment of Version 18 in the judgment was parenthetic. Her Honour noted that, while there were amendments following the lodgment of the development application, the submitters “did not allege any non-compliance with later versions of the planning scheme” and these later versions were only raised as “contextual provisions”.[66]
  6. [50]
    In this Court, Mr Hughes QC for the Council and Mr Gore QC for SH Coolum submitted that the time for applying for leave to appeal the primary judge’s ruling had long since expired,[67] that there was no power to grant an extension of time within which to make such an application and that it was not an appropriate case in any event for leave to appeal from an interlocutory ruling. Otherwise, they submitted that the weight to be given to Version 18 was a matter of discretion only and not appellable. Faced with these objections, Mr Horton QC made an instanter application for leave to challenge her Honour’s ruling.
  7. [51]
    In my view, Development Watch does not need the leave of this Court to challenge the ruling. In the first place, I am by no means persuaded that the primary judge was free to ignore Version 18, regardless of whether or not it was framed as a compliance issue. As it was, the changed scheme was raised for its contextual relevance and that should have been enough to convey to the respondents as well as the court that, although the development was required to be assessed by reference to the planning scheme current at the time of the application as well as the 2007 Approval, regard could be had to the feature that the scheme had changed by the time of the hearing. After all, the changed scheme was the most current indicator of what was considered to constitute, in the public interest, the appropriate development of the land. Of course, that does not mean that Version 18 should have been allowed to become a “vehicle for displacement or modification”[68] of Version 8, but the changed scheme ought to have at least been considered for its contextual value. To illustrate this point, the primary judge made specific reference to the 2007 Approval having been granted “12 years ago” before observing that “the planning needs of the community are not static or immutable”.[69] Whilst that may be accepted, her Honour went on to hold that it “is reasonable for the community to expect that the subject land might be developed for a more intensive form of development …” than that which was permitted under the 2007 Approval. However, if contextual notice had been taken of Version 18, it would have been readily appreciated that the planning scheme had headed in the opposite direction. Simply, the change to the planning scheme brought about by Version 18 was a relevant consideration in that sense and ought to have been accorded significant weight. The failure to do so was another error of law.
  8. [52]
    Lastly, the submission on the part of the respondents that any application for leave to appeal from the ruling is out of time and cannot be entertained is wrong; interlocutory decisions which affect the final order may generally be challenged as of right within an appeal brought from that order. As Griffith CJ said in Nolan v Clifford:[70]

“On an appeal from a final judgment, all points raised in the course of the case are open to the unsuccessful party. If a point is decided against him on an interlocutory application, there is no need for him to keep on raising it.”[71]

  1. [53]
    More recently, in Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd,[72] Gaudron, McHugh and Hayne JJ explained:

“In the course of a trial, and even before the trial commences, interlocutory orders may be made which affect the substantive rights of the parties.  Rulings that are made in the course of trial about which evidence will be admitted are an obvious example. To adopt a rule that precluded challenging any interlocutory order except by an appeal against that order would provoke unnecessary multiplication and fragmentation of proceedings.”[73] [Emphasis added]

  1. [54]
    It follows that, even if on case management grounds it was correct to require Development Watch to seek leave to add Version 18 as an issue to be considered in the court below, and then rule against it in that application, that ruling could be challenged, as it has been, in this Court. It is however unnecessary to determine that challenge because of the view I have taken that Version 18 was sufficiently raised as a contextual issue from the start of the hearing.

Proposed Ground 3 – the finding that there was a planning need for the development

  1. [55]
    The primary judge found that there was a planning need for both the hotel and residential components of the proposed development.[74] When doing so, her Honour rejected the evidence of the economist called on behalf of Development Watch, Mr Brown, and preferred instead the evidence of the economists called on behalf of the Council (Mr Ganly) and SH Coolum (Mr Duane). In written argument, Development Watch submitted that her Honour’s finding about the existence of need was in error because SH Coolum not only failed to adduce in evidence any quantitative analysis of need but, as the proponent of the development, it was obliged to do that in order to discharge its onus of proof. Thus, as part of this proposed ground of appeal, it was contended that her Honour misapplied the onus of proof.
  2. [56]
    There is no substance to this proposed ground of appeal, and this no doubt explains why it was not supported by any oral argument at the hearing. The primary judge correctly found that the question whether there was a planning need for a proposed development was a question of fact to be determined having regard to all of the evidence in the case of relevance to that issue. In carrying out that exercise, the feature that her Honour preferred one body of opinion over another was unremarkable. Likewise, her Honour’s consideration of the evidence on this topic (including, but by no means limited to, the evidence of the three economists) was not only regular and appropriate, it left no room for thinking that the onus of proof was either misunderstood or misapplied.

Conclusion and orders

  1. [57]
    The judgment below was affected by the three errors of law identified above.[75] Going as each did to a central question in the case below, that is to say, whether the proposed development complied with the Height of buildings and structures overlay code, they could have materially affected the decision at first instance, and the illustration earlier provided[76] highlights why that must be so.
  2. [58]
    Leave to appeal should accordingly be granted, the appeal allowed, the decision below set aside and the case remitted under s 65 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) to be determined according to law.
  3. [59]
    As to that, the parties should have leave to make brief written submissions on the terms of the remitter.  On one view, the issues determined by this appeal are within short compass when compared to the great bulk of the overall case determined in the court below, and none of which has been questioned in this Court. However, robust findings were made by the primary judge on the issues that have been successfully challenged and it may therefore be asking too much of her Honour to re-visit them.
  4. [60]
    At the same time, the parties should be at liberty to advance submissions about the appropriate order for costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal in this Court.
  5. [61]
    I would order as follows:
  1. Grant leave to appeal.
  2. Allow the appeal.
  3. Set aside the decision of the Planning and Environment Court made on 15 June 2020 in Appeal No. D166 of 2018 to dismiss the appeal and to approve the development application, subject to conditions.
  4. The parties are directed to file and serve written submissions (not to exceed five pages) regarding:
    1. the terms on which each contends the case should be remitted to the Planning and Environment Court to be determined according to law; and
    2. the appropriate order as to costs.

Footnotes

[1] Planning Act 2016 (Qld), s 45(5).

[2]  Clause 8.2.8.2 of the Code.

[3]  Clause 8.2.8.2(2) of the Code.

[4]  At [523]-[524].

[5]  The decision was handed down on 25 May 2020. See Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25.

[6] Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014, s 5.3.3(c).

[7]  As to which, see below at paragraph [19].

[8]  The other was Sunshine Coast Environment Council Inc.

[9] Planning Act, s 311.

[10] Planning and Environment Court Act, s 47. And see s 60(3) of the Planning Act which operates where the application involves development that requires impact assessment and provides that, after carrying out the assessment, the court is required to decide whether to: approve all or part of the application; approve all or part of the application, but impose development conditions on the approval; or refuse the application.

[11] Planning and Environment Court Act, s 43.

[12] Planning and Environment Court Act, s 45(2).

[13] Planning and Environment Court Act, s 46(2).

[14] Planning Act, s 45(2).

[15] Planning Regulation, reg 31(1)(f).

[16] Planning Regulation, reg 31(1)(g).

[17] Planning Regulation, Sch 24.

[18] Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014, s 5.3.3(d).

[19]  Approximately two storeys.

[20]  Approximately three storeys.

[21]  Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay Map OVM11H.

[22] Planning Act, s 45(7).

[23] Planning Act, s 45(8)(a).

[24]  The third proposed ground of appeal challenging the primary judge’s finding about the existence of a planning need was not developed orally.

[25] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [190].

[26] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [191].

[27] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [192].

[28] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [192].

[29] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [194] and see [294], to the same effect. Her Honour cited s 5.3.3 of the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme along with a passage from Bell v Brisbane City Council & Ors (2018) 230 LGERA 374, [50].

[30] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [227].

[31] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [264].

[32] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [295]. Her Honour’s reasons for being satisfied that the proposed development contributes to the retention of the preferred built form character for the Sunshine Coast and the local planning area in which it is to occur are set out at paragraphs [180]-[264] of the judgment.

[33] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [296].

[34] Wattlevilla Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council & Anor [2015] QPELR 21, [45]; Acland Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Rosalie Shire Council [2008] QPELR 342, 348-9 and Baptist Union of Queensland v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2003] QPELR 61, 80.

[35] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [301]-[303].

[36] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [421]-[431].

[37]  And citing s 45(5)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act and reg 31(1)(f) of the Planning Regulation.

[38] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [518]-[524].

[39]  See Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council [2019] QPELR 793, [35]-[86]; Bell v Brisbane City Council & Ors (2018) 230 LGERA 374, [67] and [70]; Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 253, [62]; Abeleda v Brisbane City Council (2020) 6 QR 441, [40] and [52]-[62].

[40] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [544].

[41] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [552].

[42] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [548].

[43] Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), s 63.

[44] Savage v Cairns Regional Council (2016) 214 LGERA 192, [8]. And see HA Bachrach Pty Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council (1992) 80 LGERA 230, 237-238, applying the test formulated in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 40.

[45] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [530].

[46] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [524].

[47] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [301].

[48]  Extracted above at [31].

[49]  T. 1-5, l. 41.

[50] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [296]-[300].

[51]  Extracted above at [31].

[52] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [302].

[53] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [303].

[54] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [420]-[431], extracted above at [32].

[55] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [518]-[525], extracted above at [33].

[56] Bell v Brisbane City Council (2018) 230 LGERA 374, [66]. And see Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd (2019) 239 LGERA 409, [67]; Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) Pty Ltd [2020] 3 QR 494, [161].

[57] Planning Regulation, reg 31(1)(g) and Sch 24.

[58] Planning Act, s 45(5).

[59] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [301].

[60] Bell v Brisbane City Council (2018) 230 LGERA 374, [70].

[61]  At paragraphs [25]-[27].

[62] Planning Act, s 45(8).

[63]  Exhibit 14, paragraph 162. Version 18 was also mentioned by senior counsel for SH Coolum, Mr Gore QC, in his opening as “an issue of weight … to address”, although it was submitted at the hearing of this application that this was in error: T. 1-44 ll. 21-24.

[64]  AR 1486 ll. 34-36.

[65]  AR 1489 l. 38.

[66] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [13](c) and footnote 11.

[67] Planning and Environment Court Act, s 64.

[68] Brisbane City Council v Klinkert (2019) 236 LGERA 88, [6].

[69] Development Watch Inc & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 25, [524].

[70] Nolan v Clifford (1904) 1 CLR 429.

[71] Nolan v Clifford (1904) 1 CLR 429, 431.

[72] Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478.

[73] Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478, [4]. And see Menz v Wagga Wagga Show Society Inc [2020] NSWCA 65, [103].

[74]  Applying the principles summarised by Wilson SC DCJ (as his Honour then was) in Isgro v Gold Coast City Council [2003] QPELR 414, [20]–[30].

[75]  At [45], [47] and [51].

[76]  At [51].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCA 6

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    Morrison JA, McMurdo JA and Burns J

  • Date:

    09 Feb 2022

  • White Star Case:

    Yes

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary Judgment[2020] QPEC 2525 May 2020Appeals by Development Watch Inc and Sunshine Coast Environment Council Inc against development application granted by Sunshine Regional Council in favour of SH Coolum Pty Ltd; appeals dismissed; development application approved subject to conditions (to be made in due course): Kefford DCJ.
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2022] QCA 609 Feb 2022-

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined (QCA)

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Abeleda v Brisbane City Council(2020) 6 QR 441; [2020] QCA 257
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCA 257
Cite 2 - (2020) 6 QR 441
Cite 3 - (2020) 6 QR 441
Acland Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Rosalie Shire Council (2008) QPELR 342
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) QPELR 342
Cite 2 - (2008) QPELR 342
Acland Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd v Rosalie Shire Council [2007] QPEC 112
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] QPEC 112
Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council [2019] QPEC 16
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QPEC 16
Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2019] QPELR 793
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QPELR 793
Cite 2 - [2019] QPELR 793
Baptist Union of Queensland v Brisbane City Council [2002] QPEC 41
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2002] QPEC 41
Baptist Union of Queensland v Brisbane City Council (2003) QPELR 61
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) QPELR 61
Cite 2 - (2003) QPELR 61
Bell v Brisbane City Council [2018] QCA 84
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCA 84
Bell v Brisbane City Council (2018) 230 LGERA 374
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2018) 230 LGERA 374
Cite 2 - (2018) 230 LGERA 374
Cite 3 - (2018) 230 LGERA 374
Cite 4 - (2018) 230 LGERA 374
Cite 5 - (2018) 230 LGERA 374
Brisbane City Council v Klinkert [2019] QCA 40
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCA 40
Brisbane City Council v Klinkert (2019) 236 LGERA 88
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 236 LGERA 88
Cite 2 - (2019) 236 LGERA 88
Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 253
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCA 253
Cite 2 - [2020] QCA 253
Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2021] QPELR 987
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QPELR 987
Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2020] QPEC 25
28 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 2 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 3 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 4 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 5 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 6 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 7 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 8 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 9 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 10 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 11 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 12 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 13 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 14 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 15 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 16 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 17 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 18 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 19 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 20 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 21 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 22 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 23 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 24 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 25 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 26 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 27 - [2020] QPEC 25
Cite 28 - [2020] QPEC 25
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2002] HCA 22
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 209 CLR 478
Cite 2 - (2002) 209 CLR 478
Cite 3 - (2002) 209 CLR 478
Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd [2019] QCA 132
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCA 132
Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd (2019) 239 LGERA 409
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 239 LGERA 409
Cite 2 - (2019) 239 LGERA 409
H A Bachrach P/L v Caboolture SC (1992) 80 LGERA 230
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1992) 80 LGERA 230
Cite 2 - (1992) 80 LGERA 230
H A Bachrach Pty Ltd v The Council of the Shire of Caboolture [1992] QCA 384
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1992] QCA 384
Isgro v Gold Coast City Council [2003] QPEC 2
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QPEC 2
Isgro v Gold Coast City Council (2003) QPELR 414
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) QPELR 414
Cite 2 - (2003) QPELR 414
Menz v Wagga Wagga Show Society Inc [2020] NSWCA 65
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] NSWCA 65
Cite 2 - [2020] NSWCA 65
Menz v Wagga Wagga Show Society Inc (2020) 103 NSWLR 103
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2020) 103 NSWLR 103
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1986) 162 CLR 24
Cite 2 - (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1986] HCA 40
Nolan v Clifford (1904) 1 CLR 429
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1904) 1 CLR 429
Cite 2 - (1904) 1 CLR 429
Cite 3 - (1904) 1 CLR 429
Nolan v Clifford [1904] HCA 15
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1904] HCA 15
Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) Pty Ltd(2020) 3 QR 494; [2020] QCA 41
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCA 41
Cite 2 - (2020) 3 QR 494
Cite 3 - (2020) 3 QR 494
Savage v Cairns Regional Council [2016] QCA 103
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCA 103
Savage v Cairns Regional Council (2016) 214 LGERA 192
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2016) 214 LGERA 192
Cite 2 - (2016) 214 LGERA 192
Wattlevilla Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2014] QPEC 47
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QPEC 47
Wattlevilla Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2015] QPELR 21
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QPELR 21
Cite 2 - [2015] QPELR 21

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Alexander Jason Elks v Brisbane City Council [2023] QPEC 332 citations
Archer v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2022] QPEC 591 citation
Bronco Dino Pty Ltd v Cassowary Coast Regional Council [2023] QPEC 152 citations
Charters Towers Operations Pty Ltd v Charters Towers Regional Council [2025] QPEC 122 citations
Clarry v Brisbane City Council [2022] QPEC 492 citations
Clarry v Brisbane City Council [2024] QCA 391 citation
Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2022] QCA 796 citations
Development Watch Inc. & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2023] QPEC 2464 citations
Edie v Brisbane City Council [2023] QPEC 92 citations
Kenfrost (1987) Pty Ltd v CRC [2024] QPEC 152 citations
Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Limited v Brisbane City Council [2024] QPEC 492 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.