Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2018
  4. Sincere International Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast - [2018] QPEC 53

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Sincere International Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast[2018] QPEC 53

Sincere International Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast[2018] QPEC 53

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sincere International Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2018] QPEC 53

PARTIES:

SINCERE INTERNATIONAL GROUP PTY LTD
(Appellant)

v

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLD COAST

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2116/18

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Applicant appeal against conditions

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 & 17 October 2018 with further material and supplementary submissions delivered on 23 and 30 October 2018

JUDGE:

Williamson QC DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is adjourned for the parties to finalise a suite of conditions consistent with these reasons for judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where approval for reconfiguring a lot – where approval includes conditions requiring the amalgamation and dedication of two lots for environmental conservation purposes – where Council concedes only one lot is required to be dedicated for environmental conservation purposes – whether alternative condition should be imposed – where alternative condition limits future development to defined building envelope – where alternative condition requires erection of fauna friendly fencing and rehabilitation of land – where alternative condition prohibits keeping of domestic dogs – whether alternative condition is lawful under s.65(1) of the Planning Act 2016.

LEGISLATION:

Planning Act 2016 (Qld), ss.45, 60 and 65

Planning & Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), ss.45 and 76

CASES:

Allen Commercial Constructions Pty Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1970) 123 CLR 490

Australian Retirement Homes Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2010] QPELR 148

Currie v Dempsey [1967] 2 N.S.W.R. 532

Hilcorp v Council of the City of Logan & Ors [1993] QPLR 199

Indooroopilly Golf Club v Brisbane City Council [1982] QPLR 13

Intrapac Parkridge Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Anor [2015] QPELR 49

Jakel Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2018] QPEC 21

Liongrain Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Albert & Ors [1995] QPLR 353

R.E. Marriott v Maroochy Shire Council & Anor [1994] QPLR 178

Sabdoen Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council [1989] QPLR 149

The Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QPEC 17

Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd (2004) 221 CLR 30

COUNSEL:

A Skoien for the Appellant

S Fynes-Clinton for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hickey Lawyers for the Appellant

Norton Rose Fulbright for the Respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    This is an applicant appeal against conditions imposed by the Council’s delegate on an approval for reconfiguring a lot (ROL). The approval is contained in a decision notice dated 8 May 2018 and, when effective, will authorise the reconfiguration of land situated at the north-western corner of the intersection of Napper Road and Arundel Drive, Arundel (the Land). The purpose of the reconfiguration is to create 67 community title lots, common property and two balance lots. The balance lots are identified as Lots 900 and 901. Condition 7 and 2a of the decision notice dated 8 May 2018 require Lots 900 and 901 to be amalgamated and dedicated to the Council, at no cost. The purpose of the dedication is stated in condition 7 as being “Public open space for environmental conservation purposes”.
  1. [2]
    There is no dispute between the parties that Lot 901 should be dedicated to Council for environmental conservation purposes. The lot is 6,285m2 in size and vegetated. Sincere International accepts that this part of the Land has ecological significance for koala habitat. The ecological significance of Lot 901 is recognised by overlay mapping for the Environmental significance overlay code (overlay code) in the Council’s planning scheme, City Plan.
  1. [3]
    Sincere International appeals against the conditions of the decision notice of 8 May 2018 to the extent it is required to dedicate Lot 900 to the Council, at no cost, for environmental conservation purposes. This lot is 2,238m2 in size and is largely cleared with a small area of vegetation and grassland of no environmental significance. The area of Lot 900 is not identified as having environmental significance for the purpose of the overlay code.
  1. [4]
    Each of the parties nominated an expert ecologist to examine the need, if any, to dedicate Lots 900 and 901 for environmental conservation purposes. A joint report of the ecologists was completed on 2 September 2018. Based on the views expressed in the joint report, the Council reviewed its position in the appeal. Through the letter of its solicitor dated 11 September 2018, the Council formally notified Sincere International it would no longer contend for conditions of approval requiring the dedication of Lot 900 for environmental conservation purposes. It follows from this concession that the Council accepts the appeal should be upheld and the decision appealed against changed.
  1. [5]
    The Council’s concession did not however mark the end of the dispute between the parties. The letter of 11 September 2018 also stated:

“Our client will now be contending for the amended set of conditions (as shown in tracked changes), which is enclosed for your consideration. We also enclose an aerial map for Lot 900 showing the proposed building envelope location for Lot 900. The amended conditions seek to reflect the mechanisms and strategies referred to in the Ecology Joint Report to achieve a potential fauna linkage in lieu of the dedication of Lot 900.”

  1. [6]
    The amended conditions package enclosed with the letter of 11 September 2018 includes condition 8, which is in the following terms:

“8 Lot 900

a Koala friendly fencing must be erected on all the boundaries of Lot 900 or otherwise as approved by Council, prior to the sealing of the survey plan that creates Lot 900. To this end, fencing must include a minimum ground clearance of 250 mm and/or incorporate other structures such as koala-bridges so as to make the site accessible to koalas.

b The keeping of domestic dogs on Lot 900 must be prohibited at all times.

c The erection of any structures including a detached dwelling on Lot 900 is limited to the building envelope located in towards the north-eastern end of Lot 900 as identified in Drawing [xyz][1]

d Lot 900, excluding the building envelope, must be rehabilitated in accordance with a Koala Habitat Rehabilitation Plan (KHRP) approved by Council prior to the sealing of the first survey plan for the land. The KHRP must contain the following information:

  1. A map showing the boundaries of the total area to be rehabilitated, this being the remaining area of the Lot excluding the building envelope
  1. The tree species mix to be planted within the area to be rehabilitated, no less than 20% of which must be Tallowwood (Eucalyptus microcorys), 20% of Grey Gum (E propinqua), the rest comprising a mix of Spotted Gum (Corymbia citriodora) and/or Northern Grey Ironbark (E siderophloia) and/or Broad-leaved White Mahogany ( E carnea) and/or Smooth-barked Apple (Angophora leiocarpa).” 
  1. [7]
    The purpose of condition 8, and associated consequential amendments to the decision notice of 8 May 2018, is to constrain the future development of Lot 900. Its purpose is to constrain the location and extent of future structures on Lot 900. The condition also requires the erection of fauna friendly fencing, the prohibition of domestic dogs and the rehabilitation of part of the lot for koala habitat purposes. The Council seeks to impose these constraints on the future development of Lot 900 in circumstances where the Land is included in the Low density residential zone, and the Council does not contend that the constraints contemplated by condition 8 are required by operation, or application of, the applicable zone code provisions under City Plan. 
  1. [8]
    Sincere International opposes the imposition of condition 8 (and associated consequential amendments) on the decision notice of 8 May 2018. It submits condition 8 is unlawful having regard to s.65(1) of the Planning Act 2016 (PA), and should not be imposed.  Central to its opposition to condition 8, is the contention that the area of future Lot 900, from a planning perspective, has no environmental significance. Further, it is contended that condition 8 is not required by a prescribed assessment benchmark.

The Land and surrounding locality

  1. [9]
    The Land is approximately 4.847 hectares in size and irregular in shape. It has three identifiable components. The first component is the most northern part of the Land that has frontage to Arundel Drive. It is effectively trapezoidal in shape with its longest dimension parallel to Arundel Drive. This road facilitates travel in a north-south direction. The trapezoid tapers in width moving from north to south. The land is undeveloped. The proposed community title development, and common property, will be located on this part of the Land. Approvals for the making of a material change of use and operational works attach to this part of the Land, and facilitate the development of the 67 lot community title development and associated common property. 
  1. [10]
    The second component of the Land is triangular in shape and is located at the corner of Arundel Drive and Napper Road. It extends in a southerly direction from the south-eastern corner of the first component discussed above. It has an area of 2,238m2. The highest point of the land is a ridge line located along the north-western edge adjoining the Arundel golf course. It slopes from the ridge line in the north-west down to the road frontage in the south-east towards the ‘apex’ of the triangle. This part of the Land is undeveloped and has no vegetation of environmental significance. Lot 900 is proposed on this part of the Land.
  1. [11]
    The third component of the Land is 6,285 m2 in size and has frontage to Napper Road. It is trapezoidal in shape with its longest dimension parallel to Napper Road. This road travels in an east-west direction. The width of the trapezoid tapers from east to west with its widest point coinciding with a change in the alignment of Napper Road as it turns in a north-west direction. This part of the Land is separated from the most northern component of the Land by an intervening allotment that accommodates the Arundel golf course. The highest point of this part of the Land is a ridge line located on its northern boundary. It slopes downwards from the ridge line in the north to Napper Road in the south, but with a more exaggerated slope than the area of future Lot 900.  It is accepted by all parties that this part of the Land has environmental significance and should be dedicated to the Council, at no cost, for environmental conservation purposes. This area will be the future Lot 901.
  1. [12]
    The Arundel Hills golf course adjoins the Land and wraps around its western and northern boundaries. Low density residential development is located further to the north and west of the golf course. The boundary between the Land and the golf course is fenced, coincident with the ridgelines described above. The golf course land slopes steeply away from the ridgeline such that the golf course is, at this location, at a lower level of elevation in comparison to the area of future Lots 900 and 901.
  1. [13]
    Arundel Drive adjoins the Land to its east. This is a busy two lane road that intersects with Napper Road to the south. By reference to the Council’s land development guidelines, Arundel Drive can be characterised as a major road of some significance, functioning as a collector road. A collector road has an environmental capacity in the order of 3,000 vehicles per day.
  1. [14]
    Arundel State School is located to the east of Arundel Drive and north of Napper Road. Aerial photography confirms there is a large area of the school that is vegetated. The area of vegetation sits between Arundel Drive and a sporting oval to the east. The vegetated area extends north from the intersection of Arundel Drive and Napper Road. The land slopes steeply from the road reserve to the vegetated area on the school land. The vegetation is recognised by City Plan as having environmental significance.
  1. [15]
    As I have already said, it is agreed between the parties that future Lot 901 has environmental significance, and should be dedicated to the Council for environmental conservation purposes. This future lot is separated from the vegetated area in the school to the east by the area of future Lot 900 and the Arundel Drive road reserve. At present, there are no fauna or koala friendly crossings provided at, or near the intersection of Arundel Drive and Napper Road. The boundary fencing for the school located along the Arundel Drive frontage was described in the evidence as akin to fauna exclusion fencing.
  1. [16]
    There is no evidence to suggest that a fauna friendly crossing, or fauna friendly fencing is planned for, or near, the intersection of Arundel Drive and Napper Road. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the boundary fencing for the Arundel State School along its Arundel Drive frontage is to be replaced with fauna friendly fencing.
  1. [17]
    Napper Road adjoins the Land to the south. It is a sub-arterial road that has four lanes divided by a raised median. It carries, and is planned to carry, significant volumes of traffic. The environmental capacity of the road is in the order of 14,000 vehicles per day. The intersection with Arundel Drive is signalised.
  1. [18]
    The area to the immediate south of Napper Road includes land in the Open Space zone, and Rural residential zone under City Plan. Land in the Open space zone presents a narrow frontage to Napper Road. The narrow frontage is adjacent to the southern boundary of the area of future Lots 900 and 901. There is no fauna friendly crossing provided, or planned, at this location. Fauna that crosses Napper Road at this location, as Dr Watson said, runs the ‘gauntlet’. This is a recognition that fauna must cross a busy four lane road that carries significant volumes of traffic in two directions.

The statutory assessment regime

  1. [19]
    The development application the subject of the appeal was made to the Council on 30 June 2017, being a date prior to the repeal of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).  The application was a code assessable application under SPA. The decision to approve the application, subject to conditions, was made on 8 May 2018. This appeal was commenced under the PA on 8 June 2018. It is to be heard and determined in accordance with the PA, and the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016[2].
  1. [20]
    Code assessment is defined in s.45(3) of the PA. It is an assessment that must be carried out against the assessment benchmarks in a categorising instrument, and having regard to any matter prescribed by regulation.
  1. [21]
    Section 60(2)(a) of the PA mandates, inter alia, that a code assessable application must be approved by an assessment manager (and this Court on appeal) to the extent it complies with all of the assessment benchmarks for the development. An application may only be refused where it does not comply with some, or all, of the assessment benchmarks and compliance cannot be achieved through the imposition of lawful conditions.
  1. [22]
    In deciding to approve a code assessable application, the assessment manager’s power (and this Court’s on appeal) includes the power to impose conditions under s.60(2)(c) of the PA. The power is to be exercised based on the assessment of the application under ss.45 and 60 of the PA. This includes an assessment against the assessment benchmarks identified in a planning scheme.
  1. [23]
    The power to impose conditions is expressed in broad terms, but is subject to ss. 65 and 66 of the PA. Relevantly, s. 65(1) of the PA provides:

“65 Permitted development conditions

(1) A development condition imposed on a development approval must -

(a) be relevant to, but not be an unreasonable imposition on, the development or the use of the premises as a consequence of the development; or

(b) be reasonably required in relation to the development or the use of premises as a consequence of the development.”

  1. [24]
    There is no requirement for an assessment manager, or this Court on appeal, to impose each and every condition that passes one of the tests prescribed in s.65(1) of the PA. The power to impose lawful conditions on an approval is a broad residual discretion to be exercised for a proper planning purpose. In Intrapac Parkridge Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Anor [2015] QPELR 49 at 55, his Honour Judge Rackemann in dealing with an analogous conditions power in SPA said[3]:

“[24] There is, of course, no requirement for an assessment manager or, on appeal, the court to impose each and every condition which might pass one of the above tests. There is a relatively broad residual discretion as to what lawful conditions to impose on the approval at hand. That discretion, while broad, must be exercised for a proper planning purpose and not for any ulterior purpose. A planning purpose is one that implements a planning policy whose scope is ascertained by reference to the legislation that confers planning functions on the relevant authority. In the case of the SPA, the assessment manager’s decision, including a decision to approve subject to conditions, must be based on the assessment of the application under Div 2 of Pt 5. That includes assessment by reference to the planning scheme.”

  1. [25]
    I would add to the above that the “planning purpose” of a condition is not ascertained from some preconceived general notion of what constitutes planning[4]. The planning purpose underlying the exercise of the conditions power in any given case is to be ascertained from the PA, and the documents to which regard must, or may be had, in the assessment of the application.
  1. [26]
    In this appeal, the Council submits condition 8 is a lawful condition. The submission assumes the area of future Lot 900 is of environmental significance for koala connectivity purposes.
  1. [27]
    Two planning scheme provisions are relied upon by the Council to establish the planning purpose underlying condition 8 (and consequential amendments). The provisions relied upon are Performance Outcomes PO15 and PO21 of the overlay code. The provisions form part of an assessment benchmark for the development application.
  1. [28]
    As a consequence of the position adopted by the Council, the following issues are to be examined, namely:
  1. (a)
    whether the area of future Lot 900 is of environmental significance, particularly for koala connectivity purposes;
  1. (b)
    whether the overlay code supports the imposition of condition 8; and
  1. (c)
    whether condition 8 is a lawful condition under s.65(1) of the PA.

Onus of proof

  1. [29]
    Before turning to deal with the three questions set out above, it is necessary to dwell upon a preliminary matter, namely, who bears the onus of proof in relation to the issues in dispute.
  1. [30]
    This is an applicant appeal against a provision of a development approval. The party who bears the onus in an appeal of this nature is prescribed in s.45(1)(b) of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016. The provision provides it is for the applicant appellant to establish the appeal should be upheld. In this case, the Council’s change in position means it is common ground the appeal should be upheld and the decision notice dated 8 May 2018 changed to delete the requirement to dedicate Lot 900 for environmental conservation reasons.  The remaining issue to be determined is what further change, if any, should be made to the decision notice.
  1. [31]
    It was submitted on behalf of Sincere International that the Council bears the onus in relation to condition 8 and the associated consequential amendments. The decision of his Honour Judge Searles in The Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QPEC 17 was cited in support of this submission. The relevant facts in that case are similar to this appeal. That proceeding was an appeal against conditions where the Council did not rely upon the impugned conditions as originally imposed on the decision notice. Rather, the Council relied upon alternative conditions nominated by it after the appeal had been commenced.
  1. [32]
    I accept the submission that the Council bears the onus in relation to condition 8 and the associated consequential amendments, but not for the reasons given by his Honour Judge Searles in the above cited decision. The answer to the onus issue is determined having regard to s.45(1) of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016, read with the Amended Notice of Appeal.
  1. [33]
    Section 45(1), as I have already observed above, provides that it is for Sincere International to establish the appeal should be upheld. This provision begs the question: what must be established for the appeal to be upheld? The question, in my view, is determined in this case by the contents of the Amended Notice of Appeal.
  1. [34]
    The Amended Notice of Appeal contains the prayer for relief and the grounds of appeal. The prayer for relief states:

“The Appellant seeks the following Orders or Judgment:

  1. (a)
    that the Appeal be allowed;
  1. (b)
    the development application for reconfiguration of the land be approved subject to amendment or deletion of the disputed conditions;
  1. (c)
    the development approval for reconfiguration of the land be varied to incorporate any resultant changes to conditions arising from amendment or deletion of the disputed conditions;
  1. (d)
    any further or other Order the Court deems fit;
  1. (e)
    costs.”
  1. [35]
    The prayer for relief in the Amended Notice of Appeal seeks orders that change the decision notice of 8 May 2018 to delete, or amend, the disputed conditions. The disputed conditions are identified in the grounds of the Amended Notice of Appeal as being those collectively requiring the dedication of Lot 900. Section 45(1) of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016 requires the applicant appellant to establish its entitlement to this relief, based on the notified grounds of appeal.
  1. [36]
    Sincere International has established that it is entitled to the relief it seeks in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the prayer for relief. This was established through the Council’s change in position notified on 11 September 2018. Importantly, no part of the relief sought by Sincere International required it to prove, as an essential ingredient to its success, that new conditions should, or should not be, imposed in lieu of the impugned conditions.
  1. [37]
    The Council’s decision to introduce condition 8 (and associated consequential amendments) does not challenge one of the matters that must be proven by Sincere International to succeed in its appeal. Rather, the Council is seeking to avoid the relief sought by pursuing alternative final relief. It is my view the Council bears the onus with respect to the alternative relief.
  1. [38]
    In this regard, I was assisted, by analogy, with the following statement of Walsh JA in Currie v Dempsey [1967] 2 N.S.W.R 532 at 539, namely:

“In my opinion, the burden of proof in the sense of establishing a case, lies on a plaintiff, if the fact alleged (whether affirmative or negative in form) is an essential element in his cause of action, e.g., if its existence is a condition precedent to his right to maintain the action. The onus is on the defendant, if the allegation is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the cause of action, but is one which, if established, will constitute a good defence, that is, an ‘avoidance’ of the claim which, prima facie the plaintiff has.”

  1. [39]
    By analogy in this case, Sincere International bears the onus of proving that its appeal should be upheld. The matters that it must establish to succeed in the appeal are contained in its Amended Notice of Appeal. The matters set out therein do not involve the imposition of new conditions. Nor do they involve the rebuttal of the Council’s contention that the decision notice of 8 May 2018 should be amended to include condition 8 (and associated consequential amendments). This is a matter raised by the Council in ‘avoidance’ of the relief to which Sincere International has established a prima facie entitlement. The Council bears the onus in relation to the matter raised in ‘avoidance’.

Is future Lot 900 of environmental significance?

  1. [40]
    The Court was assisted with the evidence of two ecologists who examined the ecological significance of future Lots 900 and 901. Dr Watson was called on behalf of Sincere International. Dr Phillips was called on behalf of the Council.
  1. [41]
    The ecologists were in agreement there is a koala population present in the local landscape. The extent of the landscape considered was coincident with an area forming the basis of a study undertaken by Dr Phillips, known as the Parkwood-Coombabah Koala Population Study 2017 (the study). The study area is approximately 1,156 ha in size. In broad terms, the findings of the study suggest there is a population in the study area in the order of 266 koalas. Sixty percent of the koala population is said to be located north of Brisbane Road. This road facilitates travel in an east-west direction to and from the Pacific Motorway. It is located some distance to the north of the Land and well removed from the intersection of Arundel Drive and Napper Road.
  1. [42]
    The southern part of the study area is where the Land is located and provides habitat for approximately forty percent of the koala population in the study area. It was uncontroversial as between the ecologists that the population is not a viable population in the southern part of the study area. There is a need for recruitment from the northern areas into the southern parts of the study area (south of Brisbane Road) for the koalas to survive in the long term.
  1. [43]
    The contest between the ecologists involved an examination of the importance that should be ascribed to the area of future Lot 900 for the purpose of koala connectivity, and whether condition 8 should be imposed to maintain and enhance that purpose.
  1. [44]
    Dr Phillips considered the area of future Lot 900 to be strategically located and, therefore, important for accommodating koala connectivity and dispersal needs in the local landscape. The importance he ascribed to the area of future Lot 900 was influenced by two matters, namely: (1) relevant findings of the study; and (2) particular features of the locality that, in his view, were demonstrative of its strategic and locational importance for koala connectivity.
  1. [45]
    As I have already said, Dr Phillips was involved in the preparation of the study. He is identified in the study as a principal consultant for the project team. The study was commissioned by the Council and covers an area of 1,156 hectares. A report was prepared containing the outcomes of the study, including the results of a computer model that identifies, and maps areas of predicted koala activity.
  1. [46]
    The modelling and resultant mapping is the product of a series of model inputs. The inputs include data collected at approximately 143 sites in the study area. Data was not collected from the Land.
  1. [47]
    Based on defined inputs, the computer modelling for the study predicted the location of koala population cells. The results of the model are mapped. A localised cell was mapped in and around the Land. The model predicts that the localised resident koala population includes breeding female koalas. The boundaries of the cell were defined by the model. The model identified and mapped the Land (including the area of future Lots 900 and 901) as falling within a high use area for east coast med-high koala population densities.
  1. [48]
    The mapping produced by the model predicts a high use koala activity area extending from Arundel State School, and west across Arundel Drive to include part of the Land. The model also predicts the high use area extends across Napper Road, terminating at a location further to the south of that road. Dr Phillips described a high use area for the purposes of the study as being a focal point of activity for koalas. It was said to typically identify important areas of home range overlap, food tree densities or key areas for social contact between individual koalas.
  1. [49]
    It is clear from Dr Phillips’ evidence that he was heavily influenced by the contents of the mapping generated by the model. The mapping and underlying modelling was the basis for his opinion that koalas were present in this part of the landscape, and rely upon the area of future Lot 900 as a corridor for connectivity across Arundel Drive and Napper Road. This corridor was seen by him as serving an important ecological function.
  1. [50]
    In addition to the study, Dr Phillips concluded there were a number of features of the Land and the immediate locality that were indicators of its importance for koala connectivity. Dr Phillips emphasised that the area of future Lot 900 is located directly north of a cutting on Napper Road which connects to land with known and recognised koala habitat value. The cutting is located on the southern side of Napper Road, separated from the Land by the width of the road reserve.
  1. [51]
    In Dr Phillips’ view, the Land and, in particular, the future area of Lot 900 is located within a gap in the vegetation known to be used by Koalas to connect to other land and habitat in the south and east of the locality. This feature, coupled with the topography of the area of future Lot 900 was considered by Dr Phillips to be important. In his view, the area of future Lot 900 is topographically better suited for a crossing point at Napper Road in comparison to steeper land, such as the area of future Lot 901, and land to the immediate west and north. The area of future Lot 900 was described by Dr Phillips as being flatter and easier for koalas to access and traverse. It was, as a consequence, said to offer a broad interface to adjoining habitat areas for connectivity purposes.
  1. [52]
    Dr Watson did not agree with Dr Phillips about the strategic importance of Lot 900 for koala connectivity. He adopted a practical approach to the assessment of the ecological value of the Land, and emphasised the following matters:
  1. (a)
    there is no evidence collected from the Land, or immediate surrounds, to confirm the mapping generated for the study accurately and reliably reflects koala activity in the local landscape;
  1. (b)
    there are no fauna friendly crossings for koalas to safely cross Arundel Drive or Napper Road to, or from the Land, including future Lot 900;
  1. (c)
    whilst it is not impossible for koalas to cross busy roads, it is not ideal to encourage them to cross Arundel Drive or Napper Road given the volume of traffic on those roads and the absence of fauna friendly crossings; and
  1. (d)
    an appropriate ecological outcome involves the development being designed to provide for koala connectivity across the Land, land to the north (the Arundel golf course) and beyond, where Dr Watson observed koalas, koala friendly habitat and existing opportunities to safely cross Arundel Drive.
  1. [53]
    Whilst I accept that Dr Phillips’ evidence was the product of careful and considered analysis, and founded upon a study about koalas in the broader locality, I prefer the evidence of Dr Watson for three reasons
  1. [54]
    First, Dr Watson’s evidence was consistent with City Plan. The area of future Lot 900 is not mapped in City Plan as having environmental significance. This is complimented by the absence of any State ecological mapping applying to the same land. Dr Phillips did not, in my view, give sufficient weight to this in his assessment.
  1. [55]
    The absence of mapping that identifies the area of future Lot 900 as having environmental significance is an important consideration in this case. The absence of overlay mapping for environmental purposes engages s.8.1(6) of City Plan which relevantly provides:

“(6) Where development is proposed on premises partly affected by an overlay, the required outcomes and assessment benchmarks for the overlay only relate to the part of the premises affected by the overlay.”

  1. [56]
    This provision of City Plan confirms the overlay code applies only to land that is affected by an overlay map. In this case, only part of the Land is affected by the overlay. The mapping reveals the area of future Lot 900 is excluded from the application of the overlay. There is no suggestion this is unsoundly based. It is, in my view, to be treated as a deliberate planning decision by the Council, and given its full force and effect. The deliberate planning decision excluded the area of future Lot 900 from overlay mapping that is intended to identify valuable areas of koala habitat. As the overlay code makes clear, it is these areas that are recognised as being ecologically important, and worthy of retention, protection and rehabilitation.
  1. [57]
    The absence of an environmental designation under the overlay code for the area of future Lot 900 cannot, in my view, be understated. As has been recognised by this Court for many years, an owner of land is entitled to use that land as he or she wishes, and is under no obligation to consider the desirability of conserving its existing environment. This is of course subject to existing town planning and other statutory controls[5].  In this context, in Liongrain Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Albert & Ors [1995] QPLR 353, his Honour Judge Quirk said at 355:

“From the point of view of environmental protection, the best result would be that all land remain undeveloped and the more of this site that remains undisturbed, the better. That the retention of fifty hectares of the eastern bushland (rather than thirty-six hectares) would be preferable could not be disputed.

However if these considerations are to be at all relevant to the determination of an appeal of this kind, they must be kept in perspective. We are not here involved in an inquiry as to whether the environmental attributes of the land as such has (sic) to justify its acquisition as an environmental preserve. This Court has no plenary power to do whatever may be seen to be of environmental advantage to the community. It must exercise the jurisdiction which it is given…The subject land is privately owned. That its owners should expect to be able to develop it in accordance with relevant instruments of statutory planning control is fundamental to proper and fair town planning.” (emphasis added)

  1. [58]
    Whilst some care needs to be taken with his Honour’s observation in Liongrain, I adopt the reasoning to the extent it confirms the Court does not have a plenary power to do whatever is seen to be in the public interest for the benefit of  environmental conservation purposes. The extent to which development of privately owned land should be permitted to impact on its existing environment is influenced substantially by the formal instruments of planning control[6]. It is the planning authorities who accept responsibility for the identification of areas where environmental conservation is appropriate[7]. The formal identification of such areas is contained in the formally adopted planning controls. Where there is to be a balance struck between environmental considerations, and the entitlement of private ownership, as would be expected, the planning controls are to be closely examined[8]. The planning scheme is, after all, said to embody a contemporary statement of the public interest.
  1. [59]
    Upon close examination of City Plan, there is no formal identification of the area of future Lot 900 as having existing, or future, environmental significance. The absence of a formal identification of this kind under the overlay code, coupled with the absence of any State interest mapping, is consistent with Dr Watson’s evidence. It supports the proposition that the area of future Lot 900 does not have environmental significance for the purposes of this appeal.
  1. [60]
    Second, it was clear from Dr Phillips’ oral evidence that he is passionate about the study and the results contained in the report dated December 2017. The report includes the koala activity mapping referred to above.
  1. [61]
    Dr Phillip’s passion for the study and the results of the study are understandable, but in my view, the Court should be cautious in accepting his evidence. The evidence is heavily reliant upon the study. The study was not prepared for the assessment of the application before the Court, and has no statutory recognition. Further, and more importantly, Dr Phillips’ evidence was founded upon a decision by him to embrace, in an unqualified way, the results of the computer modelling undertaken for the study. This included embracing the model’s predictions about the location and intensity of local koala activity.
  1. [62]
    Dr Phillips said a number of times in his oral evidence that the outputs of the model were considered by him to be actual evidence of koala activity on the Land. I do not accept this proposition. The model does no more than predict where koala activity is expected to occur. It is not of itself evidence of known koala activity. Unfortunately, the predictions of the model were not supported, or confirmed by, observations or fauna surveys specific to the Land and immediate surrounds. The absence of fauna surveys specific to the Land materially undermines the weight that can be given to the study in this case.
  1. [63]
    Evidence of observations or fauna surveys specific to the Land were, in my view, required for the study to be given significant weight in this appeal. This is because the study was undertaken for a purpose that did not involve the development application and was for a more extensive study area than just the Land. Further, the results of the study were driven by a computer model that, like any model, is constrained by the quality of the inputs. The model inputs do not include an identification of topographical features of the locality, nor do they include known impediments to koala movement in the landscape (such as roads and existing boundary fencing). Given the inputs of the model do not take into account the nature of the surrounding roads, topography and the absence of fauna friendly crossings (all as described in paragraphs [9] to [17] above), this give the Court pause for concern.
  1. [64]
    Third, as I have already said, Dr Watson adopted a practical approach to the question of ecological significance. He, unlike Dr Phillips, did not seek to embrace the outcomes of a computer generated model in an unqualified way. Rather, he emphasised what may fairly be described as a matter of common sense. Dr Watson saw the purpose of condition 8 as encouraging koalas to move through the Land, and local landscape, by crossing busy roads and intersections where there are no existing, or planned fauna friendly crossings. As Dr Watson said on numerous occasions in his oral evidence, this outcome is less than ideal and should not be encouraged.  I accept Dr Watson’s evidence in this regard.
  1. [65]
    As a consequence of the findings I have made above, the area of future Lot 900 is not treated in this appeal as being environmentally significant from a koala habitat or connectivity perspective. This is, in large measure, due to the Council’s decision to not map the area as having environmental significance in its formally adopted planning controls. The formally adopted planning controls paint a different picture to one that assumes the area of future Lot 900 is of environmental significance.
  1. [66]
    A close examination of the formally adopted planning controls reveal there is encouragement for the area of future Lot 900 to be put to an urban purpose. The area of future Lot 900 is included in the Low density residential zone. Section 6.2.1.2 of City Plan contains the purpose of the Low density residential zone code. The purpose of the zone code will be achieved having regard to s.6.2.1.2(2). This provision confirms land uses in the zone are intended to comprise a range of low intensity, low rise, predominantly detached housing that retains and enhances local character and amenity. Lot design in the zone is intended to provide practical shaped sites for intended development. Relevantly, the zone code does not provide an underlying planning purpose for condition 8. Nor does the zone code require the development potential of land in the zone to give way to general notions of what might be seen to be of environmental advantage to the community.

Does the overlay code support the imposition of condition 8?

  1. [67]
    The Council relies upon two provisions of the overlay code to establish that condition 8 is a lawful condition. Before turning to deal with the provisions relied upon, it is necessary to refer to parts of the overlay code that provide relevant context.
  1. [68]
    Section 8.2.6.2 of City Plan contains the purpose of the overlay code. The provision confirms that areas of environmental significance are identified as ‘Biodiversity Areas’. There are four Biodiversity Areas in City Plan. The Land is not included in an area of this kind. Land to the east of Arundel Drive is included in a Biodiversity Area.
  1. [69]
    Section 8.2.6.2(2)(d) of the overlay code contemplates that significant species and their habitat are identified, protected, enhanced and maintained where located outside of Biodiversity Areas. Land to which this statement applies includes land that is mapped as “Environmental significance – Priority species”. Part of the Land, including the area of future Lot 901 is mapped for this purpose, as is land to the north and east of Arundel Drive and south of Napper Road. The area of future Lot 900 is not mapped as Environmental significance – Priority species.
  1. [70]
    Part B of the overlay code contains assessable development criteria. Performance Outcomes PO13 to PO20 are included in that part of the overlay code dealing with “Priority species”. The first provision relied upon by the Council to support condition 8 is contained in this part of the overlay code.  PO15 relevantly states:

“PO15

Site design provides safe koala movement opportunities by incorporating measures to maintain connectivity between areas of koala habitat on and adjacent to the site.

Note: DEHP’s Koala-Sensitive Design Guideline should be consulted for suitable measures to provide for safe kola movement”

  1. [71]
    Mr Skoien made two points about PO15. First, he submitted the provision should be construed such that the areas of koala habitat to which the provision is directed are ‘significant’ or ‘important’. Second, it was submitted that PO15 does not apply to the area of future Lot 900 given s.8.1(6) of City Plan. This provision is set out at paragraph [55] of these reasons for judgment.
  1. [72]
    I do not accept the words ‘significant’ or ‘important’ should be imported into PO15. The context in which the provision appears does not require it. In my view, the koala habitat to which PO15 of the overlay code applies is determined in any given case by reference to the overlay mapping for ‘Environmental Significance - Priority species’. This mapping identifies land designated by the State and/or the Council as having importance for significant species. A significant species for the overlay code is the koala. The mapping specifically captures koala habitat areas. It is these areas that inform an assessment of an application against PO15
  1. [73]
    This interpretation is confirmed by three relevant points of context that work harmoniously together. The three points are: (1) s.8.1(6) of City Plan; (2) the subheading given to the part of the overlay code where PO15 appears; and (3) the contents of the overlay mapping for ‘Environmental Significance - Priority species’. 
  1. [74]
    Section 8.1(6) of City Plan makes it plain that the overlay code applies only to that land which is affected by overlay code mapping. This excludes from consideration land that is not so mapped, including land that may have koala habitat that is not recognised by the mapping. As to the mapping that is relevant to PO15, the provision appears in that part of the overlay code dealing with ‘Priority species’. The overlay mapping for ‘Environmental Significance - Priority species’ informs the application of this part of the overlay code, which includes PO15. As I observed above, the mapping identifies, inter alia, land that has environmental significance for koalas, including land that is recognised as having koala habitat of value. This is the habitat that is, in my view, intended to be captured by PO15.
  1. [75]
    As to the second point raised by Mr Skoien, it has significant force. It is founded in s.8.1(6) of City Plan. It is however unnecessary for me to express a concluded view about this point because, even assuming PO15 does apply, I am satisfied it does not require condition 8 (and associated consequential amendments) to be imposed on the ROL approval sought by Sincere International.
  1. [76]
    Performance Outcome PO15, assuming it applies to the area of future Lot 900, contemplates that site design is to provide for safe koala movement opportunities. City Plan does not define, or describe, what is, or is not a safe movement opportunity. As to what this may entail in practical terms, assistance can be obtained from the Koala Sensitive Design Guideline (Guideline) referenced in the Note to PO15.  Both parties invited the Court to consider the Guideline in the determination of this appeal.
  1. [77]
    Section 4 of the Guideline includes a definition of ‘Safe koala movement’. The definition is as follows[9]:

“Safe koala movement opportunity is a measure that is intended to:

b. minimise threats to resident and transient koalas; or

c. achieve  permeability to provide for the safe movement of koalas within and across a site; or

d. provide food or refuge sources for koalas.”

  1. [78]
    The definition contemplates that a safe movement opportunity is a measure that is intended to ‘minimise threats to resident and transient koalas’. Section 2.1 of the Guideline identifies threats to koalas from urban development activities. One of the identified threats is ‘vehicle strike (koala injury or death)’.  In areas of high traffic flow where risks to koalas are high, section 3.2 of the Guideline confirms safe movement opportunities include the provision of koala crossing infrastructure. Table 1 of the Guideline contains design options for crossing infrastructure. An example of this infrastructure includes a fauna underpass. There is no evidence to suggest that koala crossing infrastructure is planned to be provided in, or around, the Arundel Drive or Napper Road intersection.
  1. [79]
    I am far from persuaded by the evidence that condition 8, if imposed, will provide a safe koala movement opportunity. The condition does not require crossing infrastructure (such as that envisaged by the Guideline) to facilitate the safe crossing of two busy roads to, and from, adjacent habitat. Rather, the implementation of the condition will encourage koalas to move through the landscape in a way that exposes them to the threat of vehicle strike on Arundel Drive and/or Napper Road. These roads, as is recognised by their classification in formally adopted planning controls, are intended to accommodate significant volumes of traffic. It is counter-intuitive, in my view, to suggest the movement opportunity encouraged by condition 8 in these circumstances will be safe. It will fall well short of achieving an outcome envisaged by the Guideline, namely, the condition will not minimise threats to resident or transient koalas.
  1. [80]
    Further, PO15 should not be considered as if it only applied to the area of future Lot 900 in isolation from the balance of the Land. It must be remembered that the development approved will, through the dedication of Lot 901, provide a safe koala movement opportunity to mapped areas of environmental significance. Lot 901 is to be dedicated to the Council at no cost for environmental conservation purposes. I accept Dr Watson’s evidence that the dedication of this land to the Council will facilitate the safe movement of koalas through the landscape.
  1. [81]
    The movement opportunity to which Dr Watson referred involves koalas moving across the Land to, or from, the golf course in the north, and then further north again. It was in these areas where Dr Watson observed evidence of koala activity and suitable koala habitat. He also observed locations to the north of the golf course where koalas could safely cross Arundel Drive using existing infrastructure, without having to run the ‘gauntlet’.
  1. [82]
    City Plan expressly contemplates the dedication of future Lot 901 is intended to contribute to the movement of fauna in the locality, and facilitate linkages to adjacent areas of ecological significance. So much is clear from PO23 of the overlay code. It is this Performance Outcome (and accompanying Acceptable Outcome) that calls for the dedication of future Lot 901. It expressly provides that areas of environmental significance (which are mapped) are suitably protected to allow the unimpeded movement of native fauna. The provision provides, in part:

“….mapped areas as identified on the Environmental significance – vegetation management overlay map proposed for retention and areas requiring rehabilitation are suitably protected in perpetuity and will:

… 

(b) allow unimpeded movement of native fauna through matters of environmental significance and associated buffers; and

  …

(f) allow for linkages and buffers to adjacent areas of ecological significance…”

  1. [83]
    The second provision of the overlay code relied upon by the Council to support the imposition of condition 8 is PO21. This provision is included in that part of the overlay code dealing with fauna management. Performance Outcome PO21 states:

“PO21

Development design and location provides for the safe movement of native fauna through the site.”

  1. [84]
    For the same reason applicable to Performance Outcome PO15, Mr Skoien submitted that PO21 does not apply to the area of future Lot 900. Again, I accept this is an argument with significant force, but it is unnecessary for me to express a concluded view about it.
  1. [85]
    If it is assumed PO21 applies to the area of future Lot 900, the planning objective identified therein applies to all of the Land, not just to part of it. I am satisfied that the proposed development, as a whole (absent condition 8), will provide for the safe movement of fauna through the Land. This is achieved in this case by the dedication of Lot 901 to the Council for environmental conservation purposes, as is contemplated by PO23 of the overlay code. Compliance with PO21 is therefore achieved without the need to impose condition 8 (along with the consequential amendments).
  1. [86]
    There is a further reason why PO21 does not support, or require, condition 8 to be imposed on the approval sought by Sincere International. It may fairly be assumed that Condition 8, if imposed and implemented, will provide a movement opportunity for koalas through the Land, and to adjoining areas, of mapped koala habitat. This has a level of superficial attraction, but loses its force once an important matter of context is taken into account.
  1. [87]
    The movement opportunity encouraged by condition 8 terminates on the Land at the point where it adjoins busy roads, and there are no fauna friendly crossings provided to enable koalas to safely cross those roads. This is an issue to which PO15 is directed, and does not encourage. The encouragement of a movement opportunity that is not safe is the antithesis of what is contemplated by PO15. Condition 8, in my view, represents an unsafe movement opportunity and, as a consequence, is inconsistent with PO15 of the overlay code.
  1. [88]
    If condition 8 is imposed on the approval, the development will comply with PO21, but will be at odds with PO15 in the same overlay code. Such an outcome would be, in my view, contrary to common sense, and far from ideal in an environmental conservation context. A development outcome can be achieved where compliance is demonstrated simultaneously with PO21 and PO15 of the overlay code. A development outcome of this kind does not include the requirements of condition 8 (and the associated consequential amendments).

Is condition 8 a lawful condition?

  1. [89]
    Sincere International contends that condition 8 is not a lawful condition having regard to s.65(1) of the PA. This is a submission I accept.
  1. [90]
    The first limb of s.65(1) of the PA requires a condition to be relevant to, but not an unreasonable imposition on the development. Condition 8 fails the first limb of s.65(1) of the PA because the measures set out in the condition are an unreasonable imposition on the proposed development, and the use of the area of future Lot 900.
  1. [91]
    As I have already said in paragraph [7] above, condition 8 seeks to constrain the use of future Lot 900 for environmental conservation purposes. The constraint is intended to limit the location and extent of future built form. It also purports to prohibit the keeping of domestic dogs, being a lawful activity associated with a residential dwelling. The imposition of these constraints, in the absence of an environmental designation for the land or an identified requirement in the overlay code, represents an unreasonable imposition on the development of the Land.
  1. [92]
    The second limb of s.65(1) of the PA requires a condition to be reasonably required in relation to the proposed development. Condition 8 is not reasonably required. Appropriate provision has been made in the proposed development for fauna movement and connectivity, as envisaged by Council’s formal planning documents. Compliance has been demonstrated with the overlay code absent the need for condition 8. I am satisfied that condition 8 is not required for the development to comply with the overlay code.
  1. [93]
    Sincere International is entitled to expect that it may develop the Land, including the area of future Lot 900, in accordance with the relevant planning controls for the development application. This is a matter fundamental to proper and fair town planning. In my view, the relevant planning controls do not require condition 8 which will operate as a constraint on the use of future Lot 900. Condition 8 is therefore an unlawful condition.
  1. [94]
    If, contrary to my view, condition 8 is a lawful condition under s.65(1) of the PA, it is not a condition that should, in the exercise of the broad residual discretion, be imposed in any event.
  1. [95]
    For the reasons given in paragraphs [40] to [66] above, the area of future Lot 900 has no environmental significance from a planning perspective. The Council had an opportunity to designate the area as having environmental significance, but did not do so. The consequences of this fall at the Council’s feet. In this case, this outcome does not appear to be an accident. The area of future Lot 900 has been excluded from environmental mapping in circumstances where much of the surrounding area has been mapped for these purposes. This is to be treated as a deliberate planning decision. The deliberate nature of the decision is reinforced by s.8.1(6) of City Plan, read with the extent of overlay mapping on the Land and surrounding area. Further, and importantly, condition 8 is not supported, or required by City Plan, particularly PO15 and PO21 of the overlay code. 

Conclusion

  1. [96]
    Council has not discharged the onus.
  1. [97]
    Condition 8 is not a lawful condition or, alternatively, in the exercise of the discretion, should not be imposed as a condition of the approval. The amendments proposed to the decision notice of 8 May 2018 that assume condition 8 is imposed, must also fail.
  1. [98]
    The appeal is adjourned to enable the parties to finalise a suite of conditions consistent with these reasons for judgment.

Footnotes

[1]  A building envelope plan was enclosed with a subsequent letter dated 21 September 2018. The building envelope proposed was 500m2 and located in the north-eastern corner of Lot 900.

[2]  s.311 of PA, s.76 of PECA and Jakel Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2018] QPEC 21.

[3]  Footnotes omitted in quotation. The cases cited were Australian Retirement Homes Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2010] QPELR 148 and Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd (2004) 221 CLR 30.

[4]Allen Commercial Constructions Pty Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1970) 123 CLR 490, 499-500, cited with approval in Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd (2004) 221 CLR 30, 55 [56] per McHugh J, 67 [93] and 72 [112] per Gummow and Hayne JJ.

[5]Sabdoen Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council [1989] QPLR 149, 152 citing Indooroopilly Golf Club v Brisbane City Council & Ors [1982] QPLR 13, 32.

[6]Hilcorp v Council of the City of Logan & Ors [1993] QPLR 199, 202.

[7]Sabdoen Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council [1989] QPLR 149, 152.

[8]R.E Marriott v Maroochy Shire Council & Anor [1994] QPLR 178, 180.

[9]  The definition does not include a subparagraph ‘a’.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Sincere International Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Sincere International Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast

  • MNC:

    [2018] QPEC 53

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Williamson DCJ

  • Date:

    15 Nov 2018

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Allen Commercial Constructions Pty Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1970) 123 CLR 490
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1970) 123 CLR 490
Cite 2 - (1970) 123 CLR 490
Australian Retirement Homes Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2010] QPELR 148
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QPELR 148
Cite 2 - [2010] QPELR 148
Currie v Dempsey (1967) 2 NSWR 532
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1967) 2 NSWR 532
Cite 2 - (1967) 2 NSWR 532
Hilcorp v Council of the City of Logan & Ors (1993) QPLR 199
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1993) QPLR 199
Cite 2 - (1993) QPLR 199
Indooroopilly Golf Club v Brisbane City Council (1982) Q.P.L.R 13
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1982) Q.P.L.R 13
Cite 2 - (1982) Q.P.L.R 13
Intrapac Parkridge Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2015] QPELR 49
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QPELR 49
Cite 2 - [2015] QPELR 49
Jakel Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2018] QPEC 21
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QPEC 21
Cite 2 - [2018] QPEC 21
Liongrain Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Albert & Ors [1995] QPLR 353
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] QPLR 353
Cite 2 - [1995] QPLR 353
Marriott v Maroochy Shire Council & Anor [1994] QPLR 178
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1994] QPLR 178
Cite 2 - [1994] QPLR 178
Sabdoen Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council (1989) QPLR 149
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1989) QPLR 149
Cite 2 - (1989) QPLR 149
Cite 3 - (1989) QPLR 149
The Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QPEC 17
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QPEC 17
Cite 2 - [2010] QPEC 17
Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd (2004) 221 CLR 30
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) 221 CLR 30
Cite 2 - (2004) 221 CLR 30
Cite 3 - (2004) 221 CLR 30

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Barro Group Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2021] QPEC 181 citation
Bridgeman Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2021] QPEC 252 citations
GTH Resorts No 5 Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QPEC 202 citations
Johnston v Banana Shire Council [2019] QPEC 81 citation
Leeward Management Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council [2023] QPEC 383 citations
Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [No 3] [2024] QPEC 523 citations
Shun Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2020] QPEC 312 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.