Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2018
  4. United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council - [2018] QPEC 8

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

United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council[2018] QPEC 8

United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council[2018] QPEC 8

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURTOF QUEENSLAND 

CITATION:

United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2018] QPEC 008

PARTIES:

UNITED PETROLEUM PTY LTD 

(Appellant)  

v 

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL 

(Respondent)  and 

EDWINA ROBERTS 

(Co-respondent by election)

FILE NO/S:

3902/2016  

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment 

PROCEEDING:

Appeal 

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 – 16 June, 14 July 2017, further written submissions received to 8 October 2017, and further appearances 25 January and 5 February 2018.

JUDGE:

Rackemann DCJ 

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO DEVELOP SERVICE STATION AND A SHOP – whether decision to approve the development would conflict with the 2003 Planning Scheme – amenity – perceptions and reasonable expectations – noise, air, amenity and lighting – privacy – streetscape/character/visual amenity – location – need - whether there are sufficient grounds – whether there is conflict with the 2016 Planning Scheme

COUNSEL:

M Williamson and M Batty for the applicant

M Johnston for the respondent

P Beehre for the correspondent

SOLICITORS:

Thompson Geer for the applicant

HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the respondent

Hickey Lawyers for the co-respondent

CONTENTS

Introduction 4

The land and surrounds 4

The proposal 5

The assessment regime 6

The issues 7

The 2003 Planning Scheme 8

Amenity 13

   (i) Perceptions and reasonable expectations 14

   (ii) Noise, air quality and lighting 16

   (iii) Privacy 17

   (iv) Streetscape/character/visual amenity 17

Location 29

Need 30

Grounds 38

2016 Planning Scheme 39

Conclusion 40

Introduction

  1. [1]
    This is an appeal against the respondent’s refusal of the appellant’s application for a development permit for a material change of use to facilitate the development of a service station and a shop on land situated at 34 and 34A Hilda Street and 2407-2411 Gold Coast Highway, Mermaid Beach and more particularly described as Lots 1 and 2 on RP 149826, Lot 84 on RP0600 and Lots 1 and 2 on RP80818 (the land).  The co-respondent by election made a properly made submission objecting to the proposal.  
  2. [2]
    The development application was made on 18 December 2015.  It attracted 270 properly made submissions and one petition with 572 signatures objecting to the proposal.  On 9 September 2016 the Council resolved to refuse the development application, contrary to the recommendation of its officers.  

The land and surrounds

  1. [3]
    The land is 2,047 square metres in area with a direct frontage to the Gold Coast Highway of approximately 60.5 metres.  The land also has a frontage of approximately 41 metres to a residential street, Hilda Street, to the north and a frontage of approximately 27 metres to another residential street, Seaside Avenue, to the south. The land is currently improved by a modest disused detached dwelling but is otherwise vacant.  
  2. [4]
    One of the two sites adjoining the land to the east accommodates two storey townhouses (32 Hilda Street) whilst another accommodates the one storey house (33 Seaside Avenue) owned by the co-respondent by election.  Across Hilda Street is a two storey multi-unit development (2419 Gold Coast Highway).  Across Seaside Avenue is another two storey multi-unit development (34 Seaside Avenue).  Across the Gold Coast Highway to the west is a public park (Annette Kellerman Park).  
  3. [5]
    Further to the north and south of the site there are various retail and commercial uses on both sides of the highway.  There are various resorts and tourist facilities on the western side of the highway.  In the context of the highway the site lies between a neighbourhood centre to the south and a cluster of mixed use development along the highway to the north.  By contrast, both Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue are residential streets running east-west from the highway to Hedges Avenue, and providing direct access to the beach.  As was said in the joint expert report:[1]

“Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue form part of a well-established beachside neighbourhood, characterized by west-east running streets and are a mix of tightly packed low rise housing (detached, attached and small multi-unit developments) of varying ages, forms, and appearances.  This neighbourhood (and the one to the south, characterized by north-south running streets) is nowadays a fairly unique phenomenon in the city, comprising a substantial area of lowrise housing between the highway and the beach.” 

The proposal

  1. [6]
    The proposal is for a service station, intended to be operated under the ‘United Petroleum’ banner.  United Petroleum is a recognised service station operator.  The plans depict a typical modern service station comprising three fuel pumps (six hoses) beneath a canopy structure with a maximum height of 6.5 metres.  The shop component of the proposal would be located towards the eastern boundary and is to face the Gold Coast Highway.  It turns its back on the adjoining residential uses to the east and has a maximum height of 4.6 metres.  The proposal has a total site cover of 35 percent and a gross floor area of 163 metres square comprising a shop of 63 metres square, toilet facilities of 7 metres square and back-of-house of 93 metres square.  Illuminated signage would be displayed on the face of the canopy.  A freestanding pylon sign is proposed in the north-western corner of the land.  Fuel pumps are proposed to be located towards the centre of the land, under the canopy.
  2. [7]
    Three points of access are proposed.  Northern and southern access points are proposed to the Gold Coast Highway.  The northern access is proposed to be left in only.  The southern is left out only.  All turns access is proposed to Hilda Street.   No access is to be proposed via Seaside Avenue.  
  3. [8]
    Setbacks measured from the boundaries of the land are:
    1. (a)
      to the north – 6.7 metres to the building;  
    2. (b)
      to the west 6 metres to the canopy and 29 metres to the building; 
    3. (c)
      to the south – 3 metres to building; and
    4. (d)
      to the east – 3 metres to the building.  
  4. [9]
    A total of eight onsite car-parking spaces, including one disability space are proposed. Four bicycle spaces are also proposed.
  1. [10]
    The proposed hours of operation are 24 hours per day, seven day per week, but with fuel deliveries limited to between 7.00 am and 6.00 pm.  

The assessment regime  

  1. [11]
    The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) was in force at the date the development application was made and at the date the appeal was commenced and so continues to apply to the appeal notwithstanding that the Planning Act 2016 took effect on 1 July 2017.[2]
  2. [12]
    It has already been noted that the development application was made on 18 December 2015.  That was during the currency of the 2003 Gold Coast Planning Scheme.  Under that Planning Scheme the development application was impact assessable.  Accordingly, the application is to be assessed having regard to s 314 of the SPA and decided in accordance with ss 324 and 326 of SPA.  
  3. [13]
    Section 326 of SPA provides that an assessment manager’s decision must not conflict with a “relevant instrument” unless there are “sufficient grounds to justify the decision”.  A relevant instrument includes a Planning Scheme.  Schedule 3 of SPA defines “grounds” for that purpose to mean “matters of public interest”.  
  4. [14]
    The appeal proceeds by way of hearing anew.[3]  By reason of s 495(2) of SPA the court must decide the appeal based on the laws and policies applying when the application was made, but may give way to any new laws and policies the court considered appropriate.  Accordingly, whilst the appeal must be decided based on the 2003 Planning Scheme, the court may give weight to the 2016 Planning Scheme, which came into effect only shortly after the development application was made.  The appellant bears the onus.

The issues

  1. [15]
    The disputed issues in the appeal set out in the respondent’s ‘further amended consolidated grounds for refusal’[4] and relate to the following matters:
  1. (a)
    whether a decision to approve the development would conflict with the 2003 Planning Scheme;
  2. (b)
    whether, if so, there are grounds to justify the decision notwithstanding that conflict, and
  3. (c)
    the weight that should be given to the 2016 Planning Scheme and, to the extent relevant, any conflict with that scheme.  
  1. [16]
    In relation to the 2003 Planning Scheme, the Council and the co-respondent by election (Roberts) alleged conflict with the following provisions:
    1. (a)
      Residential Choice Domain: Intent;
    2. (b)
      Residential Choice Domain Place Code performance criteria PC3, PC9 and PC13; 
    3. (c)
      Service Station Code: purpose, PC1, PC5, PC10, PC12, PC13 and PC15; 
    4. (d)
      Retail and Related Establishments Code: purpose, PC3 and PC8.
  2. [17]
    Conflict was also alleged with the 2016 Planning Scheme:
    1. (a)
      Strategic Framework ss 3.4.5.1(14), 3.5.4.1(4), 3.8.1(11), 3.8.3.1(1) and 3.8.6.1(1);
    2. (b)
      Medium Density Residential Zone Code: overall outcome 2(a)(iv) and (v), (vii), 2(b)(vii) and PO1;
    3. (c)
      Commercial Design Code: s 9.3.4.2(1), overall outcome 9.3.4.2(a)(ii) and (v) and;
    4. (d)
      Service Station Code: s 9.3.17.2(1), s 9.3.17.2(2)(a) and (c), PO1, PO4 and PO9.  

It was also alleged that the development would be contrary to reasonable expectations.

  1. [18]
    Traffic and transport issues were notified but fell away.  In the second joint expert report of the traffic engineers it was agreed that certain revised access arrangements were acceptable for the subject site, although there was some disagreement about whether there was the potential to introduce an unsafe weave movement off-site whereby vehicles using the southern exit to the highway might weave across multiple lanes of the highway in order to turn right at the Markeri Street intersection to the south.  That issue was resolved by the contents of an amended concurrence agency response requiring some line-marking on the Gold Coast Highway to prevent, or at the very least, discourage that movement (and the appellant’s willingness to accept the conditions set out therein).  Mr Williams, the traffic engineer retained by the Council, expressed (in the third joint expert report) his satisfaction that the implementation of the line-marking arrangement, as referred to in the amended concurrence agency response, is an acceptable treatment.
  2. [19]
    The alleged areas of conflict may broadly be described as relating to issues of amenity, location and of need. 

The 2003 Planning Scheme

  1. [20]
    For the purposes of the 2003 Planning Scheme the proposal is described as a service station and a shop.  A service station is defined, in part, as follows:

“Any premises used or intended to be used, for the fuelling of motor vehicles, involving the sale by retail of petrol or automotive distillate or any derivative capable of use in internal combustion engines, whether or not the premises are used for one or more of the following purposes:

The sale by retail of:

…

  • Maps, tobacco, confectionary, patent medicines, soft drinks, milk products, bread, newspapers and periodicals where any such sale is to a person travelling by motor vehicle…

The term does not include…a shop.”

  1. [21]
    The land was included in the Residential Choice Domain under the 2003 Planning Scheme, the statement of intent for which was as follows:

“This domain seeks to support the provision of a range of housing choice that is responsive to the changing demographic structure of the city, whilst maintaining an efficient land use pattern.  The purpose of this domain is to support the development of a residential pattern comprising mixed dwelling types, including detached dwellings, attached dwellings and apartment buildings that relate well to each other.  This domain seeks to:

  • support residential densities that are moderately higher than traditional detached dwelling areas;
  • facilitate a wide range of home/office, home occupation and residential support services to be located within the domain, commensurate with local residents’ needs; and
  • achieve a high standard of residential amenity across the range of dwelling types in the domain.”
  1. [22]
    It was contended, in the respondent’s ‘further amended consolidated grounds for refusal’ that the proposal would conflict with that intent because it:
    1. (a)
      does not support the development of a residential pattern comprising mixed dwelling types; and 
    2. (b)
      by nature of its operation, would not achieve a high standard residential amenity in the domain. 
  2. [23]
    The proposal’s likely impact on amenity is considered later.  Insofar as the proposal’s alleged failure to support development of a residential pattern comprising mixed dwelling types is concerned, it is obviously for a non-residential use, but the planning scheme provisions did not require all land within the domain to be developed for residential purposes.  The statement of intent itself refers to facilitating a wide variety of support services commensurate with local residents’ needs. As is observed later, a service station is one of the types of use envisaged within the domain. The fact that the proposal is for a service station, rather than for a residential use does not, of itself, establish conflict with the statement of intent. 
  1. [24]
    It was pointed out that this particular service station relies on a wide catchment. That is disused later in the context of need, but the particulars of the conflict alleged with the intent of the Residential Choice domain, in the respondents further amended consolidated grounds, did not allege that the proposal would not provide residential support services commensurate with local residents’ needs.
  2. [25]
    The provisions of the Residential Choice domain contained a table of development.  That table contained a number of different sections, one of which is Section A.  A service station was identified within the ‘impact assessable’ column of Section A.  Section 4.6.1 of Chapter 2, Division 1, Part 5 of the Planning Scheme provided as follows:

“All uses included in Section A of the table of development may be considered as appropriate for the domain to which the table of development applies, subject to each use meeting the relevant assessment criteria.

Any use not listed in Section A of the table development should be considered as undesirable or inappropriate in the domain to which the table of development applies.

Any material change of use not individually listed in Section A of the relevant table of development will be treated as impact assessable, except where this would conflict with the provisions of Schedule 8 of the IPA.”  

  1. [26]
    Accordingly, a service station was not, of its nature, considered by the planning scheme to be undesirable or inappropriate in the domain. It was a use which may be considered appropriate in the domain, subject to it meeting the relevant assessment criteria.  
  2. [27]
    The same cannot be said of the shop component, since that did not appear in Section A of the table of development.  The appellant accepts conflict in that regard but submits that the gravity of the conflict is easily overcome by the merits of the proposal otherwise in circumstances where:
  1. (a)
    a service station, as defined, admitted of the prospect of a retail component; 
  2. (b)
    the table of development in Section A, included a ‘convenience shop’ as code assessable in the domain; 
  3. (c)
    the difference between a shop and a convenience shop as defined was, in part, the size of the shop – a convenience shop was a shop with a gross floor area not exceeding 150 square metres and sells food for human consumption.  It may also sell convenience goods; 
  4. (d)
    the shop component of the proposal has a gross floor area of 163 square metres, only some 13 square metres greater than that envisaged for a convenience shop; and 
  5. (e)
    the Council did not alleged that a decision to approve the application would conflict with PC7 or PC8 of the Service Station Code in the 2003 Planning Scheme which required the sale of fuel to be the primary function of the use with a retail component remaining in ancillary part of the use.  
  1. [28]
    The town planners did not see a difficulty with the shop component, if the service station was considered to be acceptable.  Mr Brown, the town planner engaged by the Council, conceded that: 
    1. (a)
      if a service station use is considered acceptable by the court, the proposed convenience shop does not pose a problem from a planning perspective;[5]   
    2. (b)
      he has no serious concerns about the shop being independent of the service station;[6]
  1. (c)
    if the service station is considered to be acceptable from a planning perspective by the court, there is no difficulty with the convenience shop being approved.[7] 
  1. [29]
    Unsurprisingly, the evidence of the economists was that a modern service station includes a convenience store component, as a matter of course, and there is an obvious synergy between a convenience store and a petrol station.[8]  
  2. [30]
    The Residential Choice domain had a Place Code.  It contained 14 performance criteria and corresponding acceptable solutions.  As was pointed out for the appellant, there was no alleged conflict with the provisions in relation to building height, building setback, vehicular crossings, siting, advertising devices and landscaping.  The respondent’s further amended consolidated grounds for refusal alleged conflict with PC3, which provides that the site coverage of all buildings must not result in a built form that is bulky and visually intrusive.  The allegation was that the proposal is visually intrusive, however the proposal meets acceptable solution AS3.1.2 by having a site cover which does not exceed 40 percent.  That leaves PC9 which relates to building appearance and PC13 which relates to amenity protection. Those matters are considered later.  
  3. [31]
    The 2003 Planning Scheme also included specific development codes, one of which was for service stations.  The purpose of that code was as follows: 

“This code seeks to facilitate the provision of service stations at suitable locations throughout the city.  The code is also intended to ensure that service stations are established to meet the needs of local residents, visitors and travellers, through convenient points of service.  It also seek to ensure that the location of service stations is limited to sites of a sufficient area to accommodate the development, vehicle access, car parking and any necessary buffers.  The code encourages modern, attractive appearance and design, whilst contributing to the local character and protecting the amenity of surrounding areas.”  

  1. [32]
    The development requirements part of the code contained 15 PC’s and associated AS’s.  Again, the appellant drew attention to the fact that there are many with which no conflict was alleged, including in relation to siting, access, site area and vehicle movement on site.  There are others, however, which were controversial.  They are building setback (PC1), location (PC5), building appearance (PC10), need (PC12), traffic impacts (PC13) and lighting (PC15). It has already been noted that the traffic issues fell away.  Other issues are considered below. 
  1. [33]
    The Retail and Related Establishments Code was also raised in the respondent’s amended consolidated grounds for refusal.  It relates to the shop element of the proposal.  It was not the focus of the argument in the appeal. The matters raised in relation to that code are related to matters of amenity and character which are otherwise considered later.  

Amenity 

  1. [34]
    The acceptability of the proposed service station is assessed by reference to the relevant assessment criteria which require, amongst other things, a consideration of impacts upon amenity.  In particular, PC13 of the Residential Choice Domain Code (the Domain Code) required that the proposed use must not detract from the amenity of the local area having regard, but not limited, to the impact of noise, hours of operation, traffic, lighting, signage, visual amenity, privacy, odour and emissions.
  2. [35]
    It was pointed out, on behalf of the respondent, that the requirement that the proposed use must “not detract” is not qualified by a word such as “unreasonably” and it was submitted that no such qualification ought to be implied. The ordinary principles of statutory construction, as applied to planning schemes, does however, permit a practical approach. As Skoien SJDC observed in Body Corporate for Kelly's Beach Resort v Burnett Shire Council & Ors[9]: 

“It is trite to recall that probably all uses of land have some adverse effects on the occupants of a neighbouring residence. Even the most desirable neighbour must occasionally create noise or other activity which to some extent, even minor, is an annoyance to others. … The perfect neighbour does not exist except for the most tolerant person.”

His Honour, in dealing with a provision of a planning scheme which required demonstration that a proposed development would not adversely impact on residents or residential amenity adopted a test of whether amenity would be unreasonably degraded. Counsel for the respondent was content to put trivial impacts to one side.[10] I would not regard an impact which is trivial, immaterial, minor or insignificant as adverse for the purposes of PC13.

(i)  Perceptions and reasonable expectations 

  1. [36]
    It was pointed out, on behalf of the respondent, that the concept of amenity is broad and includes not just tangible amenity impacts but also matters of perceptions and sense of place.[11] It was submitted that to introduce a service station on the subject site would detract from the perception of the residents of the residential area to the east of the highway of their area and its sense of place, even if the proposal were found to have no unacceptable tangible amenity impacts otherwise and even if the Service station was removed from the residences of those concerned, rather than adjacent to, or even within direct view of the residences of those who expressed such concerns.[12]  Reference was made to the lay witness statements which spoke of concerns of the service station detracting from the residential character and feel of the area and a concern that the area would not feel the same again once a service station had been developed and that such development would not fit with the area and was not expected.  Reliance was placed upon Thomas Holdings Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [1991] QPLR 32, Vanglow Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Albert [1991] QPLR 68, Prime Group Properties Ltd v Caloundra City Council & Darracott & Ors [1995] QPLR 147 and MPR Contractors Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council [2002] QPELR 256.
  2. [37]
    Whether such subjective perceptions are a matter of legitimate concern from a town planning perspective is influenced by their reasonableness given the provisions of the Planning Scheme.  As Skoien SJDC said in Prime Group Properties Ltd v Caloundra City Council (supra) at 150 (underlining added):

“The resident/objectors gave evidence of their actual perception and the fears they held of the effect of the development. Their fears were, I thought, sometimes over-stated, even unlikely. However I accept that the actual perception which the residents claimed to have is genuinely held. That perception is one of residential amenity. Provided that perception can be seen to be reasonably held in an objective sense, it should be given considerable weight. 

Whether their perception is reasonably held depends very largely on the planning scheme in force at the relevant time. A resident in a locality ought to expect that a particular piece of land will be developed to one of the ‘as of right’ uses set down by the planning scheme. For the site, zoned Residential 'E', those uses are all predominantly residential although it must be conceded that one of them, motel, has a minor commercial component. Then they ought to expect that the land may be developed in one of the ways which the Council might permit (subject to objections). The scheme defines that as ‘any purposes other than those permitted by column III (i. e. as of right) or prohibited by column V.’ That column V prohibits both service station and shop as well as a large number of other commercial uses.

So it has been reasonable for the surrounding residents to hold the perception of the general area, including the site, as excluding commercial uses generally and this proposed use specifically. Thus the subjectively held and objectively held perceptions are the same.”

  1. [38]
    The cases relied upon by the respondent and referred to above were cases in which service stations were prohibited uses in the zone.  The situation with the Residential Choice domain is different.  Whilst it was pointed out, on behalf of the respondent, that the 2003 Planning Scheme gave no express encouragement for service stations in the Residential Choice Domain or in the Urban Residential Land Use Theme, in the way it did for service stations in various centres, and whilst reference was made to the evidence of some residents as to their actual expectations concerning development, the fact remains that service stations were nevertheless one of the uses which may be considered appropriate in the Residential Choice domain, under the 2003 Planning Scheme subject to meeting the relevant assessment criteria.  Reasonable expectations under that Planning Scheme must therefore have included the possibility of land within the domain being developed for a service station subject to meeting the assessment criteria.  The residents’ subjective perceptions that the sense of place would be diminished by the mere presence within their area of a service station, should not be regarded as reasonably held, under the 2003 Planning Scheme, far less determinative, if the assessment criteria are otherwise met.

(ii)   Noise, air quality and lighting 

  1. [39]
    Potential impacts in relation to noise, lighting and air quality were examined by Ms Richardson (retained by the appellant) and Mr King (retained by the respondent).  The experts agreed that the proposed development would meet the appropriate health and amenity limits subject to appropriate conditions of development incorporating measures which they recommended (and to which the appellant agreed).  In a further joint report the experts agreed that lighting from the proposed development would not result in lighting nuisance impacts, subject to a detailed lighting design being undertaken to provide fixed lighting design which prevents adverse lighting amenity impact upon neighbouring residents.  The experts agreed on the terms of particular conditions to achieve that result.
  1. [40]
    The appellant was criticised for not producing a detailed lighting plan, but as Mr King confirmed,[13] the experts did not believe that one was required at this point in time.  There is, on the evidence, no reason to doubt that an appropriate plan, to achieve the appropriate standard, can be achieved.  It should be noted however, for the purposes of assessing visual amenity, that compliance with the standard for lighting, does not mean that there is no visible light.[14]  There will, for example, be a well-lit area under the canopy and illuminated signage.
  2. [41]
    In their first joint report, the experts also noted the potential for cars exiting the Hilda Street access at night to cause a headlight sweep across the apartments to the north of the subject site.  They noted that the unit manager’s residence provided some shielding, but recommended that the landscaped areas on the northern boundary be planted to 1.5 metre in height to further minimise the risk of impact.
  3. [42]
    Subject to the measures recommended by the experts, I am satisfied that the proposal would not detract from the amenity of the local area by reason of noise, air quality or lighting nuisance. 

(iii)  Privacy 

  1. [43]
    A privacy concern was raised in relation to the apartments to the north.  It was suggested that if an occupant of one of those units decided to leave their door (or window) open, a customer of the service station site would be able to see into their unit from across Hilda Street. The units in that building face the subject site, so it is unsurprising that, should an occupant choose to open their door, there will be a line of sight to development on the subject site and vice-versa.
  2. [44]
    Of course, even without the subject development, an occupant who chooses to open their door will not enjoy privacy, but rather will be exposing their unit to view more generally, including the view of passers-by.  The development of a service station on the subject site would have an incremental effect, but not one which, in my view, would be significant.

(iv)  Streetscape/character/visual amenity

  1. [45]
    Matters of streetscape, character and visual amenity were addressed by Mr Curtis (retained by the appellant) and Mr McGowan (retained by the respondent).  Of relevance are PC9 and PC13 of the Domain Code and PC1 and PC 10 of the Service Station Codes which are as follows:
Domain Code

PC9

All buildings must be designed and constructed to a high aesthetic standard, and complement or enhance the character of the local area.

AS91.

The massing and proportions of new buildings are consistent with those of adjoining or neighbouring buildings.

 

AS9.2

Building materials, patterns, textures and colours used in new buildings are complementary to those of nearby buildings.

PC13

The proposed use must not detract from the amenity of the local area, having regard, but not limited to, the impact of:

........

(f) Visual amenity.

AS13

No acceptable solution provided.

Service Station Code

PC1

All buildings, structures and car parking must provide for setbacks from the street frontage and the side and rear boundaries which are appropriate to the efficient use of thesite and the streetscape character of the local area.

AS1.1

The fuel pumps and canopies are set back a minimum of 7.5 metres from the road frontage/s.

AS1.2.1

All buildings and other structures are set back:

(a) a minimum of ten metres from the frontage/s;

(b) a minimum of two metres from the side and rear boundaries.

OR

AS1.2.2

The site abuts an existing or future residential area, and all buildings, fuel pumps and structures are set back a minimum of ten metres from the side and rear boundaries.

PC10

The design of all buildings and structures must be in keeping with the appearance of the local area and utilise a design theme that expresses a modern and functional appearance.

AS10

No acceptable solution provided.

  1. [46]
    The first part of PC9 of the Domain Code is concerned with the aesthetic standard of the proposal.  The last part of PC10 of the Service Station Code seeks a design theme which “expresses a modern and functional appearance”. There was no real criticism of the design of the proposal as a modern and functional service station.  The focus of the debate was as to whether it would complement or enhance the character of the local area (PC9 of the Domain Code) and be in keeping with the appearance of the local area (PC10 of the Service Station Code) and utilise a setback which is appropriate to the streetscape character of the local area (PC1 of the Service Station Code) and not detract from the visual amenity of the local area (PC13 of the Domain Code). That requires an assessment of the proposal in the context of the local area. 
  2. [47]
    It has already been observed that the town planning provisions admitted of the prospect of service station development in the Residential Choice Domain. That does not mean that each and every parcel of land within the domain is suitable for such development. Underlying much of the opposition to the proposal to locate a service station on the subject land was the notion that it is an inappropriate site because it is embedded in a residential area with which the proposal would be out of character. 
  3. [48]
    It is true that the subject land does not abut non-residential uses and that Mermaid Beach has a strong residential component. Indeed, as is noted later, the 2016 Planning Scheme recognises that Mermaid Beach is a locality with a particular character and amenity which favours a strong permanent residential population and where residential amenity is prioritised under the new Planning Scheme. An examination of the local area however, reveals that it does not have a homogenous character.  In particular, the Gold Coast Highway Corridor exhibits a different character to other parts of the local area.
  1. [49]
    The experts were in agreement that the locality may be considered to be composed of four ‘character units’ which were identified by Mr McGowan as the beachside interface, the beach neighbourhood, the highway corridor and the canal estate beach interface respectively.  The subject site falls within the highway corridor character unit whilst those parts of Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue to the east of the subject site fall within the beach neighbourhood and beach interface.[15]  Mr Curtis emphasised what he saw as the appropriateness of the proposal in the context of the highway corridor, whereas Mr McGowan saw the proposal as inappropriate in its relationship either with that character or the beach neighbourhood character to the east.
  2. [50]
    As Mr Curtis observed, the site has its principal frontage to the Gold Coast Highway and, given that it is one of the city’s busiest roads, it is reasonable to assume that the greater majority of people will view the proposal from the highway.  His evidence was that:
    1. (i)
      the relevant section of the highway in which the subject site falls is characterised by 1 and 2 storey commercial development, 1 to 3 storey residential development and pockets of open space;  
    2. (ii)
      the mix of development, together with its age and visual quality results in a discordant streetscape with little visual cohesion or coherent identity;
    3. (iii)
      the mix of development types, land uses and setbacks create a discordant streetscape character that lacks overall amenity and identity;
    4. (iv)
      the width of the highway relative to the low height and scale of development along its frontages and its discordant appearance results in the carriageway being the most defining element of the streetscape; and
    5. (v)
      the highway has an overwhelming influence on the visual character of the streetscape.
  3. [51]
    Mr McGowan agreed that the highway character unit is diverse, with little coherence, there being little consistency in built form, appearance or setback.  He considered however that the proposal has little similarity or compatibility with the majority of uses and built forms even along the highway and that rather than being seen to complement existing commercial developments, it would only add to or exacerbate the poor coherence along the highway.  Mr McGowan was also concerned that the development of the subject site would prejudice what he saw as a planned break between commercial areas to the north and to the south of the site, evidenced by the zoning of the land.  That however, fails to give appropriate weight to the potential for non-residential development to occur in the Residential Choice Domain.
  4. [52]
    In forming his opinion that the proposal would be complementary to, or enhance the character of, the local area, at least from the perspective of the highway, Mr Curtis considered that:
    1. (i)
      The width and visual modulation of the frontage to the highway is comparable with the streetscape along the highway;
    2. (ii)
      The visibility and operation of the proposal would contribute to the activation of the streetscape, creating a more cohesive and coherent edge to the eastern side of the highway in a way which is compatible with its image and identity as a commercial strip;
    3. (iii)
      The horizontal form and height of the canopy and service building are consistent with those of existing development in the locality along the highway frontage; and
    4. (iv)
      The relatively open character of the development will complement the open character of the park in the western side of the highway.
  5. [53]
    As Mr McGowan pointed out, the observation in (i) above relates more to lot width than the form of the development.  Mr McGowan pointed out that the ‘activation’ is more in the form of signage, lighting and traffic activity than visually interesting building facades that would define or engage the street, although I accept that the development is not incompatible with the ‘image and identity’ of the highway such as it is.  I accept Mr McGowan’s opinion that everyday observers will not see the character of the service station as particularly complementary to the character of the park on the opposite side of the road.  I accept that a service station is a distinct form of development for the area, but it is difficult to conclude that the proposed service station would appear to be incompatible or would appear out of place in the context of the highway given the mixed character of the Highway Corridor Character Unit. It stretches credulity to think that a reasonable passer-by along the highway at Mermaid Beach would, upon seeing a service station at this location, recoil at the thought that they were being confronted by development which was out of place. Further it can, in my view, be fairly said to be complementary, at least in terms of its horizontal form and height.
  1. [54]
    Even if there were thought to be some level of conflict by reason of the use being different in appearance or not positively complementary of what exists along the highway, the gravity of the conflict would be low since there would, I am satisfied, be no significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of the highway given its existing low visual quality and discordant streetscape, with little to no cohesion. 
  2. [55]
    The proposal would, I am satisfied, primarily relate to the highway. Mr McGowan, however, was also concerned about the impacts of the proposal on the beach residential neighbourhood. As he reasonably observed, whilst there may be some expectation that there is a diminishing amenity in the beach neighbourhood the nearer a property is to the highway, it is reasonable to expect that the positive amenity (and key characteristics) of the beach neighbourhood be substantially maintained, and the proximity to the highway should not provide an excuse to disregard residential amenity entirely. Mr McGowan was of the view that the proposal would sharply contrast with and erode the characteristics of the adjoining Beach Neighbourhood Character Unit, particularly at the western end of Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue and would detrimentally affect their streetscapes.  He also considered that the proposal would have an adverse visual amenity impact on its neighbours. 
  3. [56]
    There is no doubt, as Mr Curtis acknowledged, that Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue have a more spatially defined streetscape character.  Mr Curtis saw the proposal as responding to that character by attempting to achieve a “transition” from the Gold Coast Highway character to the local street character, something he acknowledged is not an easy task.[16]  
  4. [57]
    Mr Curtis saw an appropriate “transition” being achieved by 2 metre high acoustic barriers along parts of each of the frontages of Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue frontages of the site together with landscaping, which he saw as an attempt to reflect, as best as the proposal could, something of the streetscapes of both Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue, which include properties with high walls and garages built along the street frontages. Mr McGowan saw the proposal as presenting an unattractive and undesirable streetscape to all frontages.
  5. [58]
    It may be noted that AS 1.2.2 to PC1 of the Service Station Code provides, in the case of a site which abuts an existing or future residential area, for a minimum side and rear setback of 10 metres for all buildings, fuel pumps and structures, in order to achieve setbacks which are appropriate to the efficient use of the site and the streetscape character of the local area. The proposal meets the acceptable solutions for boundary setbacks in the domain place code, which takes precedence over specific development codes,[17] but compliance with all codes is required to the extent relevant to the development application and it was not submitted, for the appellant, that PC1 of the service station code is inapplicable. Further, PC1 of the service station code extends to structures, which are not the subject of PC4 of the domain code. The separation to the edge of the canopy structure, being a visually dominant element of the proposal,[18] is only 3 metres in the case of its closest part to the boundary of the property of the co-respondent by election.
  6. [59]
    The performance criterion requires, relevantly, a setback which is appropriate to the streetscape characteristics of the local area.  Mr Curtis’ evidence was that, whilst Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue have a more consistent residential character, the proposal represents a ‘transitional response’ with setbacks which are compatible and appropriate. His trial report drew attention to the fact that the interface between commercial and residential development elsewhere in the area is commonly of an ongrade carpark and/or service lane utilized by the commercial property.  It must be acknowledged however, that none of those deal with the setback of a service station to a residential area.  Mr McGowan saw the proposal as being in conflict with PC1.
  7. [60]
    Notwithstanding the landscaping and fencing proposed, the service station would remain quite evident from the street, in Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue. In particular the canopy, being a dominant visual feature, would appear above the fencing and landscaping.  As the photomontages’ evidence, whilst that element is set back more generously from the adjoining townhouses as viewed from Hilda Street, it comes to within close proximity of the property of the co-respondent by election, as viewed from Seaside Avenue.
  1. [61]
    Mr McGowan took a strong stand against any notion of a service station on the subject site. He saw the fact that the subject development would be identifiable as a service station as a negative, even if it were thought to be the best designed service station on the planet.[19]  He appeared to be influenced by a misreading of the planning scheme provisions.  It is difficult to see how any amount of set-back would overcome his objections, which were rooted in a fundamental objection to the sight of a service station in this context.  I do not accept that strict approach, but that is not to say that I accept Mr Curtis’ view either. 
  2. [62]
    Insofar as appearance, character and streetscape issues are concerned, the relevant provisions direct attention to the local area.  An assessment of the local area reveals that it is characterised by different character units.  The subject site is within the Highway Corridor Character Unit and is adjacent to the Beach Neighbourhood Character Unit.  The proposed development whilst for a different and distinct use than currently exists in the area, would sit comfortably with what exists within the Highway Corridor Character Unit, but not so with what is within the Beach Neighbourhood Character Unit to the east. The proposal would, by reason of its location and orientation, have its primary relationship with the Highway Character Unit and would have little effect on the Beach Neighbourhood Character Unit, other than at its western extremity.  It has attempted to address its relationship with the western extremity of the Beach Neighbourhood character unity by streetscape fencing and landscaping, but the lack of a more substantial setback, particularly for the canopy structure from the co-respondent by election’s property results in quite an abrupt change and leaves me short of being satisfied that the proposal meets PC1 of the Service Station code.
  3. [63]
    The planning scheme also requires an assessment of impacts on the visual amenity of the local area. Those most likely to be affected are the immediate neighbours at the western extremity of Hilda Street and Seaside Avenue. As has already been noted, the amenity of the occupants of those properties, including their visual amenity, is affected by their proximity to the highway. As a consequence, they are exposed to views of the highway, its street lighting and the development which fronts the highway. Those are matters of relevance to a consideration of the impact of the proposal, but do not warrant disregarding their residual residential amenity. 
  4. [64]
    The proposal has a number of immediate neighbours which are 2 storey residential developments with potential to overlook the subject land.  Those neighbours include the units to the north of the subject land.  The units are half owned by Mr Barton and his partner with the other half held by Mr Craighead. The owners live at the units, with the remaining units being tenanted. Mr Barton and Mr Craighead gave evidence of their opposition to the proposal. That included their view that the proposal would detract from the attractiveness of the units to tenants. Mr Barton specifically raised a concern about impacts of having to look directly at the service station. 
  5. [65]
    That development has a range of units in different situations. Some of the units are at the western end of the building on the ground level.  Those units are setback from the boundary behind a boundary fence of approximately 2 metres in height and open space.  It is difficult to see how the occupants of those units could be materially adversely affected by the proposal.  The units above those have an outlook, but are located towards the corner of the Gold Coast Highway at the western end of the building.  As Mr Curtis pointed out the outlook afforded to those units would be largely dominated by the view of the highway and is unlikely to be a major factor that influences their occupancy.  I do not regard the proposal as materially adversely affecting their visual amenity.  
  6. [66]
    There are units on the ground floor of the eastern part of the development.  The immediate existing view from those units is of the carpark and parking in the carpark to the unit development itself. Were the development to proceed, any partial view to the development would be across the unit carpark and Hilda Street and towards the landscaping and fencing of the proposal and those parts of the service station visible above or to the side thereof.  The occupants would be conscious of the fact of the service station development but I do not regard the impact on their visual amenity as significant. 
  7. [67]
    There are units on the upper floor on the eastern part of the building from which occupants would look out onto the service station.  As the photomontage evidence, the fencing and landscaping would provide relatively little visual screening for them. Mr Curtis pointed out that the existing outlook for them is over the car parking, as well as the carriageway of Hilda Street, and from there across the subject site to the Gold Coast Highway. The balcony to those units is narrow and apparently more for access than recreation.  In the joint report he assessed the views from the development as affording limited amenity which would “not be compromised by the appearance of the proposal in the background.” In his trial report, in relation to the view from the upper level of the eastern part of the development, he drew attention to the site landscaping in the foreground and the Norfolk Island palms further in the background as being prominent in comparison with the built structure of the proposal which he considered “appears relativity minimal” and the hardstand as being “not particularly dominant”, partially screened and viewed in the context of the carpark in front of the units and the Hilda street carriage way and the highway.
  8. [68]
    The view of the proposal for those on the upper floor units in the eastern part of the development is not remote. Further, I do not regard the existing visual amenity enjoyed by the occupants of the units as diminished to a point that warrants ignoring a significant further diminution in their residential amenity from a visual perspective.  As Mr McGowan pointed out, there would be a number of residents of the units whose outlook would be onto the service station including its forecourt area, its vehicular and commercial activity, truck refuelling, acoustic barriers and canopy.  As already noted, the elevation of the viewer renders the landscaping relatively ineffective as a screen. The views would take in not just the development, but the vehicle and commercial activity on the site and the illumination associated with the 24 hour operation. That would lead to an impact of some significance.
  9. [69]
    There is a 2 storey residential development on the southern side of Seaside Avenue (34 Seaside avenue), but in respect of which no photo montage view analysis was undertaken, but on Mr McGowan’s evidence also has units which look directly at the subject site, and more particularly, have second level units in respect of which landscaping will provide little screening. The occupants of those units would also be subject to a visual amenity impact of some significance.
  10. [70]
    There is a 2 storey villa development adjoining the land to the east.  The front unit of that development addresses the street whilst the rear unit faces the rear of the front unit.  Both units have western walls towards the subject land.  The wall of the rear upper unit has no windows.  The wall of the front upper unit has some smaller windows, which would likely be to bathrooms and two larger windows, which would likely be to bedrooms, at least one of which appears to have translucent glazing. The units appear to be not reliant on views to the west.  There is currently a fence on the common boundary at the lower level, which would be replaced by a  2.4 metre acoustic barrier.  There was no photomontage analysis of the visuals from that development, but I do not regard the likely impact upon that premises as undue.
  11. [71]
    The co-respondent by election owns the premises at 33 Seaside Avenue (the Roberts property).  She has owned the property for over 20 years and it has been in the ownership of her family for 53 years.  She resided in the property for 16 years until 2006 when she married and moved into her husband’s property.  In 2008 she moved her mother into the house and spent much time there caring for her, until her mother moved into a hospital in 2014 and eventually into a nursing home.  In October 2014 she decided to renovate the home with a view to her family living in it, however she has leased the property to tenants pending the outcome of this appeal.  
  12. [72]
    Whilst the house on the Roberts property is orientated towards Seaside Avenue, it has a pleasant but somewhat narrow backyard with a separate small building.  The subject land shares a common boundary with the Roberts property along both its western and northern boundaries.  At one stage the proposal was for acoustic barriers along the eastern boundary of up to 3.5 metres.  That was reduced to 2.2 metres in height in the proposal that was recommended for approval by council officers.  In order to meet appropriate amenity protections however, the appellant has now had to increase the height of the acoustic barrier so that it varies up to 3 metres in height on the western and northern boundaries of the Roberts’s property.  That is a height of barrier which is greater than is ordinarily expected of a typical suburban fence and, as the photomontage prepared by Mr Elliott shows, creates, in the context of running along both boundaries of a somewhat narrow backyard, a negative visual impact and an uncomfortable sense of enclosure. Both Mr McGowan and Mr Brown saw the height of the acoustic walls as resulting in adverse visual amenity outcomes.  Mr Curtis, on the other hand, described the barriers as “marginally higher” than typical fences, whilst Mr Perkins considered that any “minor impacts” from the “limited increase” in height would be compensated by improved acoustic environment and visual privacy.
  1. [73]
    The acoustic barrier would have an enclosing and imposing presentation as evidenced by the photomontage.  Mr Curtis acknowledged that, in the photomontage, the fence “does look fairly bulky”, and agreed that, as it presents in the photomontage, it is quite an overbearing height for a fence on the boundary of a residential place,[20] but expressed the opinion that its presentation could be improved by a varied treatment, such as a varied colouration, so that it merged better with the appellant’s own landscape planting in the foreground.  He conceded however that that would only assist to an extent and that the occupant would still be well and truly aware that they have a 3m acoustic fence and that “the top one third of that fence is probably… they wouldn’t expect to see.”[21]
  1. [74]
    Mr McGowan’s evidence was that:

“I was there when Mr Elliott took the photo, and it was my view that, as it is, it’s quite a nice space.  It’s quite confined, but it’s a nice area to relax, have a cup of tea and so on.  The acoustic barriers, as I think is illustrated by this, are really – it’s quite a small yard.  They’re really going to cause an uncomfortable sense of enclosure, which will seriously detract from that amenity.”

  1. [75]
    I accept Mr McGowan’s assessment in that regard and I consider that the impact is significant.
  2. [76]
    What the photomontage also shows is that, because the canopy is located relatively close to the boundary of Mrs Roberts’ property, it, in effect, looms above the view of the acoustic barrier such that the view from the top of the acoustic barrier is to a substantial part of the underside of the canopy and, from there, to the fascia of the canopy.  As Mr Curtis agreed, the view from that perspective, appeared somewhat overbearing compared to the current situation.  As Mr McGowan accepted, the canopy is not overbearing in terms of height in accordance with building heights permitted under the Domain Place Code.  That does not mean however, that the unscreened view to the underside of a service station canopy and the fascia at relatively close quarters from one’s backyard looming over a 3 metre acoustic barrier has no visual impact or no more impact on the enjoyment of ones residential amenity from a visual perspective than the view of the side of a hypothetical residential building of a similar height (or even greater) on the other side of a domestic fence. The canopy is a visually dominant element of the service station and will also be subject to illumination, albeit that the illumination would not cause a specific light nuisance.  
  3. [77]
    One only has to view the photomontage (a copy of which is annexed to these reasons) to appreciate that from the backyard of the Roberts property there will be a significant impact on the residential amenity of the occupant from a visual amenity perspective.  That reasonable expectations under the 2003 Planning Scheme must include the prospect of service station development within the residential domain does not render acceptable the imposition of such a visual impact on the immediate neighbour That impact is one which, in my view, is of such significance as to warrant refusal of the proposal. 

Location

The location of service stations is dealt with in PC 5 of the Service Station Code which provides as follows:

PC5

The Service Station must be located so it:

  1. Does not contribute to commercial and industrial ribbon development.
  2. Does not adversely impact on nature conservation or open space areas.
  3. Complements local shopping facilities or established non-residential development in urban areas.

AS5.1

The Service Station is located adjacent to a highway or motorway interchange at aservice node

AS5.2

The Service Station is located within or adjacent to local shopping facilities or established non-residential development.

AS5.3.1

The Service Station is not located in nature conservation or open space areas.

OR

AS5.3.2

The Service Station is located in nature conservation or open space areas and has one or more of the following characteristics:

  1. the site is located adjacent to a highway or motorway;
  2. the site has no environmental or ecological values;

or

  1. he use is one element of a development which also provides a range of amenities such as rest area, toilets and picnic facilities.
  1. [78]
    It was submitted for the appellant, that the proposal adopts the acceptable solutions because it:
    1. (i)
      is located on a highway (AS5.1);
    2. (ii)
      is adjacent to facilities on the corner of Markeri Street and the highway (A5S 5.2); and
    3. (iii)
      is not located in nature conservative or open space areas (AS5 3.1).
  2. [79]
    The submission in relation to AS 5.1 incorrectly assumes that the words “at a service node” only qualify “motorway interchange”.  The submission in relation to AS 5.2 is factually incorrect, as the land is not “adjacent” to those facilities.  I accept however, that the proposal meets the performance criteria in that:
    1. (a)
      it would not contribute to commercial urban development.  It would become another development with the commercial strip along the highway, but it would not extend the strip. Rather, it would consolidate development between existing development which already occurs both to the north and to the south;[22]
    2. (b)
      it would not adversely impact on nature conservation or open space areas; and
    3. (c)
      it would complement the range of facilities in this part of Mermaid Beach.[23]

As was noted on behalf of the appellant, the council did not allege conflict with PO6 of the service station code of the 2016 planning scheme, which is in somewhat similar terms. 

Need 

  1. [80]
    Performance criterion 12 of the Service Station Code in the 2003 Planning Scheme provides that a service station must be in a location where there is a demonstrable need for the service station use.  Whether that is so in this case was considered by two economists, Mr Duane (engaged by the appellant) and Mr Leyshon (engaged by the respondent).  Mr Duane’s view is that there is a clear and strong level of economic need for the proposed facility whilst Mr Leyshon considered that there is a low level of need for the service station and no discernible need for the convenience retail element.  
  2. [81]
    There was some debate as to what constitutes a “demonstrable need” for the purposes of PC12 and, in particular, whether even a low level of need, as found by Mr Leyshon, would meet that description.  The ordinary meaning of demonstrable is something which is capable of being shown or logically proved. That says nothing of the strength of what is shown or proved.  A need does not have to be particularly strong to be a demonstrable need.  The provision ought however, consistently with the ordinary principles of construction, as they are applied to planning schemes, be interpreted as referring to a real or substantive (rather than trivial, immaterial, minor or insignificant) need which is capable of being shown or logically proved.[24]
  3. [82]
    Need was assessed by the experts by reference to the trade area for the proposed development which extends 2 to 5 kilometres around the site, restricted by waterways throughout the surrounding areas and the pattern of urban development. The 2016 population of the trade area was estimated at 51,410 persons, comprising a primary sector of 28,970 made up of Mermaid Beach, Mermaid Waters and part of Broadbeach and a secondary sector of 22,240 made up of Burleigh Heads and Burleigh Waters.  That is predicted to rise to 52,760 by 2019, 53,860 by 2021, 56,860 by 2026 and 60,110 by 2031.  The extent of the trade area to the south reflects the higher degrees of southbound traffic likely to be attracted by the proposed development.  
  4. [83]
    The extent of the trade area led to a submission, on behalf of the respondent, that the proposal does not sit well with the intent of the domain which refers to residential support services “commensurate with local residents’ needs”. It is important, in considering the intent of the Residential Choice Domain that a service station is provided for within the domain and presumably falls within the range of residential support services contemplated within the domain notwithstanding that the planning scheme also provides, in the Service Station Code, that such development is to service not only the needs of local residents, but visitors and travellers as well.[25] Further, insofar as the needs of local residents is concerned, service stations typically do not have very small catchments. The evidence is that they are typically provided at a rate of 1 per 4000-5000 persons in metropolitan areas with the current level of provision on the Gold Coast at 1 per 5,500 residents.  Service stations which fulfil the role of residential support services in accordance with the planning scheme will be those which serve thousands of residents as well as visitors and travellers.  
  5. [84]
    The particular service station in this case, however, will trade to an extensive trade areas and population. Indeed the 2019 trade area population of 52,760 falls within the 40,000 to 60,000 which the Planning Scheme cites as the catchment for a sub-regional Centre. Even the primary sector population is within the range for a District Centre. That makes is difficult to characterise it as one which is simply providing a residential support service commensurate with local residents’ needs. To the extent there is a need however, satisfaction of that need on the subject site would not have any significant impact on the hierarchy of centres[26] and would be particularly advantageous for that part of the catchment, in the order of 3,300 local residents in the middle of the Mermaid Beach, who do not have a service station within a convenient driving distance of their home. The respondents Further Amended Consolidated Grounds for refusal did not allege conflict with the intent of the domain in this respect and so it is unnecessary for me to reach a concluded view about conflict, but I would not refuse the proposal on this basis in any event.
  1. [85]
    The trade area is not currently devoid of service stations. There are currently five service stations within the primary sector and four within the secondary sector.  All bar two operate on a 24 hour basis.  It was submitted on behalf of the respondent and the co-respondent, that the appellant had failed to show that there was any deficiency in the facilities currently offered or that its proposal was doing more than simply offering another facility which some might prefer.[27] The appellant submitted that its proposal would fulfil a need in terms of the number facilities provided within this catchment and in terms of choice, competition and convenience.
  2. [86]
    Service stations are currently provided at a rate of approximately one service station per 5,700 residents within a trade area which is growing in terms of population and which is also expected to grow in terms of its demand for fuel, in line with population growth.[28]  It was submitted by counsel for the respondent that there are factors, such as the future of electric vehicles which may impact upon the growth of demand for fuel, but each of the economists agreed that the impact of such matters was too uncertain to factor into their predictions.
  3. [87]
    In the absence of any other service stations, the provision in the trade area in 2019 will be one per 5,862 residents, comprised of one per 5,974 in the primary sector and one per 5,723 in the secondary sector.  As Mr Leyshon acknowledged,[29] that would represent a significant undersupply compared with the rate of one per 4,000 to 5,000 persons which is typical for a metropolitan location.  Mr Duane, for the purposes of his analysis, adopted a ‘benchmark’ of one per 5,000 persons.  
  4. [88]
    Mr Leyshon formed the view that there is only a relatively small undersupply in the trade area by reference to the rate of one service station per 5,500 persons which in fact applies across the Gold Coast.  Mr Duane saw that rate as indicative of a general undersupply of service stations across the Gold Coast, particularly when regard was had to the tourist component on the Gold Coast which, as Mr Leyshon acknowledged,[30] would have been expected if anything, to add to the demand and so result in a rate of provision which was greater, rather than less, that the national average.  Nevertheless, as Mr Duane acknowledged, the Gold Coast average is based on a significant population base and as Mr Leyshon pointed out, in the absence of changes in the market or evidence (such as overpricing) across the Gold Coast market in general, it is difficult to disregard the current rate of provision across the Gold Coast as an indicator of what is appropriate within that market. That is not to say that the national average ought be completely disregarded.  Ultimately Mr Duane, whilst sticking with his figure of one to 5,000, acknowledged that these were not “hard and fast benchmarks” and did not cavil with the difference between the benchmark he used and the Gold Coast average.[31]  
  5. [89]
    The proposal would alter the level of provision of service stations within the trade area so that instead of there being a level of under provision relative both to the typical ratio for a metropolitan area and the Gold Coast average, there would be a level of provision which approximated the metropolitan average in about 2019, increasing to a level approximating the Gold Coast average in 2026.  In particular, in terms of the main trade area, there would be one per 5,276 in 2019, one per 5,386 in 2021 and one per 5,686 in 2026.  In terms of the primary sector there would be one per 4,978 in 2019, one per 5,112 in 2021 and one per 5,487 in 2026.  Mr Duane saw that as being consistent with view that there is a strong need.  He pointed out that those numbers are variations around the benchmarks and that it is in the interests of the consumer for facilities to be provided slightly ahead of time.
  6. [90]
    The joint economic report forecast an increase in the fuel market for the catchment area of 7.8 million litres by 2031. It was pointed out by counsel for the respondent that whilst Mr Duane says, in the joint report, that a service station typically requires a volume of 3-3.5 million litres per annum to be successful, only 2.29 million litres of the growth was predicted by 2021. Mr Duane pointed out, however,[32] that the proposal would not be reliant simply on growth in the market, but would compete for a share of the existing market.
  7. [91]
    The numerical analysis indicates a level of need in that the catchment is, on any view somewhat underprovided for relative to the benchmarks, but not a strong level, particularly in light of the fact that the current provision of service stations within the catchment is not greatly below the average for the Gold Coast area and, upon provision of this development, will approximate the national average but be somewhat greater that the current Gold Coast average until 2026.  The situation can be contrasted with Peet Flagstone City Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Anor [2016] QPELR 538 where, in a city where service station provision was typically being provided in line with the metropolitan average, there was no service station within the relevant trade area to service a population of 6,480 persons, which was growing at a rate of 11.4%.
  8. [92]
    The joint report of the economists also makes reference to passing traffic and to tourist facilities in the locality.  The proposal would, of course, attract some trade from those sources. Mr Leyshon accepted[33] that the site is a good one for a service station in that it would have access to a high volume of passing trade, but the same could be said of sites elsewhere on the Gold Coast Highway. As for tourists, the rate of a provision of service stations across the Gold Coast would implicitly account for a level of tourism.  The only specific reference to tourist facilities in close proximity to the site is at paragraph 70 of the joint economic report, which refers to a number of resorts within 500m of the site without analysis of the further demand that would produce. 
  9. [93]
    It was submitted, for the respondent, that in addition to falling short of proving a demonstrable need for a service station, the appellant had fallen short of proving a demonstrable need for a service station operating 24 hours a day.  The economic experts were clearly conscious of the proposal to operate the development on a 24 hour basis.  They dedicated a section of their report to the 24 hour trade issue and their report included a point of agreement about key trends reflecting the importance of convenience and petrol stations opening 24 hours.  It was not suggested, by Mr Leyshon that, to the extent there was a need for the proposal, that the need was only for limited hours of operation.
  10. [94]
    Mr Leyshon was of the view that, considered in isolation, there is no need for the convenience retail element of the proposal, given the retail facilities in the area. Modern service stations however include, as a matter of course, a convenience component,[34] upon which they depend[35] as a source of revenue and which provide advantage to the consumer in that they allow for a multipurpose trip.[36] Mr Leyshon accepted that there is a synergy between the petrol and the service components of a service station,[37] such that if there is judged to be a  need for the service station it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a need for the combined facility.[38]
  1. [95]
    The appellant relied on convenience, choice and competition as supporting the demonstration of need.  Insofar as convenience is concerned, the existing service stations in the primary trade area are located to the north of Broadbeach and Mermaid Waters and to the south, at Miami.  The service stations in the secondary catchment area are located further south in Burleigh and Burleigh Waters.  As Mr Leyshon acknowledged in the joint report, those who reside in the middle of Mermaid Beach, being in the order of 3,300 residents, currently have to travel up to seven minutes to access a service station from their home.  Mr Duane observed that this would mean a round trip of approximately 14 to 15 minutes, which he considered, and I accept, is not convenient for a modern consumer.  The proposal would provide increased convenience in this regard.  
  2. [96]
    It was pointed out by Mr Leyshon that 79% of persons in the workforce in this area work in other parts of the Gold Coast, with the overwhelming majority of those persons travelling by car, such that they would not be totally reliant on having a service station in their area of residence.  The fact that it would be possible for them to buy fuel beyond their local area however, does not mean that there is no need, in a planning sense, for a conveniently located facility within their area as well.  Need in planning terms is a relative concept.  It does not connote pressing urgency but rather relates to the general wellbeing of the community.  A use would be needed if, it would, on balance, improve the services and facilities available in a locality.[39]
  3. [97]
    The subject site would obviously be conveniently located for those accessing it travelling southbound on the Gold Coast Highway.  It would therefore be convenient for residents of the trade area east of the highway.  As was pointed out for the respondent however, it is less conveniently located for the areas west of the highway.  Residents from the west (which is the larger part of the trade area) approaching the site by travelling northbound on the Gold Coast Highway would only be able to directly access the site by performing a U-turn on the highway to the north of the subject site.  Mr Duane pointed out that residents of the trade area would travel south along the Gold Coast Highway for a variety of purposes and would not always be making a single purpose trip to the service station.  
  1. [98]
    Those who, having attended the service station, wish to make their way to the west of the highway can most immediately do so by turning right at the Markeri intersection.  To do so from the southern Gold Coast Highway site access however, would involve unsafe weaving across multiple lanes, which the line marking arrangement agreed to as a result of the amended concurrence agency response is designed is to obviate.  Mr Duane considered that this would not create a convenience difficulty because residents to the west of the highway would become familiar with the circumstances and simply exit via Hilda Street onto the Gold Coast Highway.  The evidence of the lay witnesses is that there are times, during congested periods, when that turn can also be difficult.  
  2. [99]
    I accept that the proposed location would be less convenient for those west of the highway than for those to the east, but it would offer a materially increased level of convenience compared to the current situation. 
  3. [100]
    Insofar as competition is concerned, there are currently a range of operators within the trade area, being three Coles Express, two 7-Elevens, two Caltex, and two independents.  The proposal is intended to facilitate entry of United as a further competitor into trade area.  As Mr Leyshon pointed out, fuel is a relatively undifferentiated product, with the choice of fuel provider unlikely to be a significant customer decision factor.  It was a matter of agreement amongst the economists however, that United is a price competitive operator and typically charges some of the cheapest petrol prices on the Gold Coast.  Whilst the experts had not carried out extensive surveys, their observations were consistent with their understanding of United’s corporate strategy.  The benefit of that to the consumer lies not just in the price charged by United but in the competitive response it provokes from others.[40]  As Mr Leyshon pointed out however, one must bear in mind the magnitude of that advantage.  His evidence was to the effect that United does not enjoy a significant price advantage in the areas of the Gold Coast where it currently trades.  There was no evidence of price surveys in the trade area to suggest that it currently suffers from any particular lack of competitive pricing.  It is reasonable to expect, given its corporate strategy,that the entry of United into the market would increase competition to a degree, but the extent of the benefit is unquantifiable and could not be assumed to be of a great magnitude. 
  1. [101]
    While the experts were in agreement that there was a level of need the question is the strength of that need.  When regard is had to both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of need, I am satisfied that the extent of the need is somewhat greater than assessed by Mr Leyshon, and sufficient to meet the performance criterion, but not by a great margin and it is  not a strong need case. 

Grounds

  1. [102]
    The grounds relied upon by the appellant to justify approval in the event of conflict being found with the 2003 Planning Scheme are as follows:
    1. the proposal provides a positive visual contribution to the locality;
    2. the proposal enhances the open character of the locality;
    3. the proposal adds to the activation of the Gold Coast Highway;
    4. the proposal will assist in achieving casual surveillance of the park on the opposite side of the Gold Coast Highway;
    5. the proposal will provide a service for homebound residents on a major road;
    6. the proposal makes provision for the possibility of future light rail in the area;
    7. the proposal fulfils the convenience needs of the locality;
    8. the proposal fulfils a gap in the service station network through increased convenience, choice and competition;
    9. the provision of 24 hour operation enhances the tourist character of the area by a provision of greater choice and convenience; and
    10. the proposal does not result in any adverse amenity or environmental impacts. 
  1. [103]
    Grounds 5, 7, 8 and 9 relate to need, which has been dealt with above.  For the reasons given, there is a need, but it is not a strong need. 
  2. [104]
    Grounds 1, 2 and 3 relate to visual and character issues which have been dealt with earlier. Whilst it would fit in with its highway context, the proposal does little to positively improve that context. Further, it would somewhat diminish the western extremity of the streetscape of Seaside Avenue whilst having a negative impact on the visual amenity of neighbours, particularly the occupants of the property of the corespondent by election .
  3. [105]
    I accept the opinion of Mr McGowan that it is unlikely, given the distance between the park and the service station, the median fencing and the traffic along the highway, and the way the park slopes away from the highway, that someone in the park would have a perception of surveillance from the service station or that service station patrons would be particular effective casual surveyors of the park.  
  4. [106]
    As to Ground 6, as Mr Brown pointed out, whether correct or not, any development on the subject land would need to be designed to accommodate future provision of an adopted light rail project.
  5. [107]
    As to ground 10, I have found that the proposal would cause adverse visual amenity impacts.
  6. [108]
    In my view the grounds are not particularly strong.  They, together with the matters discussed earlier, are sufficient to overcome the admitted conflict arising by reason of the shop component of the proposal.  They may also have been sufficient to warrant approval notwithstanding some other areas of conflict or arguable conflict save for the conflict arising by reason of the adverse visual impacts particularly those arising from the 3 metre high section of the acoustic barriers on the co-respondent by election’s boundary and the proximity of the canopy section to her residence.   It is that visual impact which in my view is particularly unacceptable notwithstanding the grounds upon which the appellants have relied.

2016 Planning Scheme

  1. [109]
    The 2016 Planning Scheme came into force shortly after the application was made. Its provisions should be afforded significant weight.
  1. [110]
    Pursuant to the 2016 Planning Scheme, the land is included in the Medium Density Residential Zone.  A service station is impact assessable development within that zone.  The relevant assessment criteria include the Strategic Framework, the Medium Density Residential Code, the Commercial Design Code and the Service Station Code.
  2. [111]
    It was pointed out, on behalf of the appellant, that the overall outcomes of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code may be contrasted with those of the Low Density Residential Zone Code in that the latter include an express statement that service stations are a form of incompatible land use which are not located in the zone.  The overall outcomes for Medium Density Residential Zone Code do not contain the same statement in relation to service stations.  It was submitted that, as with the 2003 Planning Scheme, the current Planning Scheme contemplates service stations within the prevailing zone.  
  3. [112]
    As at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Overall Outcomes for the the Medium Density Residential Zone Code also contemplated the possibility of service station development in the following provision:

“(5) which carry higher potential for impacts on amenity such as carwashes, child care centres, health care services, food and drink outlets, service stations, shops, veterinary services, community care centres, educational establishments, and places of worship may be considered if appropriately designed and located and not detract from the residential amenity of the area.”

  1. [113]
    Subsequently, the provision was amended so as to remove the reference to service stations in the inclusive list of examples. It was submitted, for the appellant that the court ought not afford weight to the amendment, in fairness to the appellant, given that it only came into effect after the completion of evidence. The parties have however, been given the opportunity to make submissions about its effect. It is not inappropriate to afford it some weight. The respondent relies on it to reinforce the submissions it made about the effect of the provisions otherwise discussed. In any event however, the provision, it its unamended form, identified service stations as a use with higher potential for impacts on amenity which may be considered if appropriately designated and located and not detract from the residential amenity of the area. For the reasons discussed the proposal would not meet those tests.
  1. [114]
    Other provisions of the Overall Outcomes include the following:

“(a)  land uses – 

…

  1. (iv)
    include neighbourhood centres and stand-alone small scale non-residential development consistent with strategic framework;

…

  1. (vii)
    do not detract from the residential amenity of the area.”
  1. [115]
    The likely impact of the proposal on residential amenity has already been discussed.  Provisions of the Strategic Framework in relation to neighbourhood centres and stand-alone small scale non-residential development is dealt within s 3.4.5 of the Strategic Framework, The subject proposal is not a neighbourhood centre, nor is it within a neighbourhood centre.  It would be a stand-alone, small scale commercial use.  The location of those uses is dealt within s 3.4.5.1(14) of the Strategic Framework which provides:

“(14) stand-alone, small scale commercial uses (e.g. neighbourhood store, medical centres) may be appropriate in suburban and urban neighbourhoods (including light rail urban renewal area), new communities, Merrimac/Carrara flood plain special management area, townships and marine and general industry areas, where these uses:

  1. (a)
    are of type and size that will not undermine the viability of existing, or new neighbourhood centres;
  2. (b)
    provide a direct service to the immediate neighbourhood/industry area or a high frequency public transport stop;
  3. (c)
    maintain a compatible form and scale to nearby development;
  4. (d)
    do not unduly detract from local character and amenity; and
  5. (e)
    are not service station, bar, hotel, nightclub or supermarket uses.”
  1. [116]
    Even leaving to one side the fact that the service station is intended to serve a much wider trade area than the immediate neighbourhood and would, for the reasons already given, have undue amenity impacts, it is a form of development, namely a service station, which the provision excludes as one which may be appropriate as a stand-alone small scale commercial use in suburban and urban neighbourhoods.
  2. [117]
    Mr Perkins saw the exclusion of service station in (e) as “neither intentional nor correct” and gave it no weight in his assessment.  That was on the basis that service stations are code assessable development in three of the nine zones in which neighbourhood centres, consistent with the outcomes of the element, occur and service stations are contemplated in the Overall Outcomes of four of the zones.  Mr Perkin’s approach however is erroneous because clause 14 is not concerned with the location of uses within centres.  Rather, it is concerned with the location of standalone small scale commercial uses in suburban and urban neighbourhoods. By comparison section 3.4.5.1(2)(d) expressly contemplates that service stations (where operating during the standard trading hours in the centre) are among the uses provided for in neighbourhood centres. The note included the Medium Density Residential zone as a zone in which neighbourhood centres, consistent with the outcomes of the element occur.
  1. [118]
    It was submitted, for the appellant, that the Overall Outcomes for the Medium Density Zone Code, including that relating to the location of stand-alone small scale nonresidential development consistent with the Strategic Framework must be taken to be fulfilled by the subject proposal by reason of its satisfaction of the Performance Outcomes in the Zone Code.  Whilst the Performance Outcomes relate to matters of set-back, site cover, height, density and lot design rather than anything to do with the matter addressed in the relevant part of the Strategic Framework, the appellant pointed to s 5.3.3(4) of the Planning Scheme which provides that for Code Assessable Development, that which complies with the Performance or Acceptable Outcomes of the Code complies with the purpose and the Overall Outcomes of the Code.  Whilst the service station will be Impact Assessable under the current Scheme, it is difficult to see why the Code should be interpreted in a different way in the context of Impact Assessment.
  1. [119]
    In this respect there appears to be a weakness in the zone code in that none of the development criteria addresses this part of the purpose of the code.  It should be noted however, that Impact Assessable Development is to be assessed against all identified Assessment Criteria.  That Assessment Criteria includes the Strategic Framework and s 1.5(1) of the Planning Scheme provides that the Strategic Framework prevails over all other components of the Scheme to the extent of any inconsistency.  
  2. [120]
    The 2016 Planning Scheme also includes a Service Station Code, the purpose of which is to facilitate the design and safe operation of service stations while avoiding any environmental impacts on neighbouring properties.  The purpose of the Code is to be achieved through a number of Overall Outcomes, one of which is that service stations are designed and located to avoid any adverse impacts on residential land uses.  Performance Outcome 4 is that “service stations do not abut a residential land use”.  There is no Acceptable Outcome provided with respect to that Performance Outcome.  
  3. [121]
    Those provisions evince a strong planning intent to protect residential amenity against  ‘any’ adverse impacts. That is to be achieved not only by design measures, but by location.  The Performance Outcome envisages that occurring by way of physical separation from residential land use, something which the subject proposal flies in the face of.   It was pointed out that the Acceptable Outcomes to Performance Outcome 1 envisages side and boundary setbacks of only 2 metres, but that is in the context of the code as a whole which otherwise envisages physical separation by means of Performance Outcome 4.   
  4. [122]
    Mr Perkins saw PO4 as expressing a preference. Whilst non-compliance with a performance outcome might not be fatal, PO4, in its terms, expresses more than a preference. Further Mr Perkins saw the location of service stations abutting residential land as “all but unavoidable” where service stations are contemplated in zones where the predominant land use is residential. That will however, depend upon the circumstances. There may well be sites within such zones which do not abut residential land uses because they are separated by roads, parks or existing nonresidential land uses. The zoning of the land does not afford a proper basis for affording less weight to PO4.
  5. [123]
    The physical separation of potentially conflicting land uses is a strategy which is reflected in the higher order provisions of the current Planning Scheme.  In that regard, Strategic Outcome 3.8.1(11) provides that activities which “generate emissions or impacts are adequately separated, designed and managed to avoid environmental harm or nuisance to residential or other sensitive land use areas” and Specific Outcome 3.8.6.1(1) provides that “activities that could conflict with the health and amenity of existing or planned sensitive uses are adequately separated, designed and managed”.
  1. [124]
    It was pointed out, for the appellant, that s 5.3.3(4)(c)(1) provides that, at least with respect to Code Assessable Development, a development which complies with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of the Code complies with the Code, even if it departs from the Performance Outcomes.  For the reasons given however, I am satisfied that the proposal in this case not only departs from PO4, but also would have undue amenity impacts and not comply with the purpose and overall outcomes of the Code.
  2. [125]
    Reference was also made to the provisions of the new planning scheme in relation to the tourism economy. That was because s 3.5.4.1(4) acknowledges that Mermaid beach is one locality with a particular character and amenity which favours a strong permanent residential population and where residential amenity is prioritised. The impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area, including, in particular, the residential uses, has been a matter of assessment under both schemes.
  3. [126]
    Whilst the proposal complies with the zone code under the 2016 Planning Scheme, by reason of its compliance with that codes assessable development criteria, it conflicts with the Strategic Framework and, even leaving that to one side, it conflicts, in any event, with the Service Station Code. Attaching weight to its provisions serves to confirm the conclusion that the proposal should be refused. 

Conclusion

  1. [127]
    For the reasons given the appellant has failed to discharge its onus.  The appeal is dismissed. 

Footnotes

[1]JER, p 215 para [8].

[2]See Planning Act 2016 s 311(2). See also Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 s 76.

[3]Section 496(1) of SPA.

[4]Exhibit 6A.

[5]T4-59.

[6]T4-59.

[7]T4-60.

[8]T2-81, 82.

[9][2003] QPEC 023, [2003] QPELR 614 at [60].

[10]T6 -20, 21.

[11]Broad v Brisbane City Council & Anor (1986) 2 Qd R 317.

[12]For example the Frawleys.

[13]T4-100.

[14]T4-90 –T4-101.

[15]The beach interface is to theeast of  Hedges Avenue.

[16]T2-114.

[17]Pt 7, Div 1, Ch 1, Cl 4.

[18]See JER paragraph 50.

[19]T 3-27, T 3-32.

[20]T2-123.

[21]T2-123.

[22]JER paragraph 24.

[23]JER paragraph 22.

[24]Counsel for the appellant conceded that it could not be referring to a trivial level of need – T6-52.

[25]See the statement of purpose of the Service Station Code.

[26]JER paragraph 88.

[27]Intrafield Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council (2001) 116 LGERA 350.

[28]See JER table 6.

[29]T2-73.

[30]T2-76.

[31]T2-49.

[32]T2-55.

[33]T2-68.

[34]T2-81.

[35]T2-82.

[36]T2–83, 84.

[37]T2-83.

[38]T2-84.

[39]See Prime Group Properties Ltd the Caloundra City Council and Durracott at [1995] QPLR 147 at 145.

[40]T2-70.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council and Edwina Roberts

  • Shortened Case Name:

    United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council

  • MNC:

    [2018] QPEC 8

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Rackemann DCJ

  • Date:

    27 Feb 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
Body Corporate for Kelly's Beach Resort v Burnett Shire Council [2003] QPEC 23
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QPEC 23
Broad v Brisbane City Council[1986] 2 Qd R 317; [1986] QSCFC 27
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1986] 2 Qd R 317
Intrafield Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council (2001) 116 LGERA 350
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 116 LGERA 350
Kelly's Beach Resort v Burnett Shire Council & Ors [2003] QPELR 614
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QPELR 614
MPR Constructions Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council (2002) QPELR 256
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) QPELR 256
Peet Flagstone City Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Anor [2016] QPELR 538
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QPELR 538
Prime Group Properties Ltd v Caloundra City Council (1995) QPLR 147
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) QPLR 147
Cite 2 - (1995) QPLR 147
Thomas Holdings Pty Ltd v Council of City of Gold Coast (1991) QPLR 32
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) QPLR 32
Vanglow Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Albert (1991) QPLR 68
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) QPLR 68

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Archer v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2022] QPEC 592 citations
Cheung v Brisbane City Council [2021] QPEC 392 citations
Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2020] QPEC 253 citations
Development Watch Inc. & Anor v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2023] QPEC 243 citations
Dreamline Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2021] QPEC 131 citation
Grundy & Anor v Fraser Coast Regional Council [2024] QPEC 172 citations
Hill v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2021] QPEC 592 citations
JSFNQ 1 Pty Ltd v Townsville City Council [2021] QPEC 282 citations
K & K GC Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2018] QPEC 97 citations
Lennium Group Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2019] QPEC 172 citations
Parmac Investments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2018] QPEC 322 citations
Sanad Capital Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2023] QPEC 82 citations
Self Storage Helensvale Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Gold Coast Council [2021] QPEC 292 citations
Vella's Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council [2019] QPEC 602 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.