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

Heap v Logan City Council[2023] QPEC 52

Heap v Logan City Council[2023] QPEC 52

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Heap & Ors v Logan City Council [2023] QPEC 52

PARTIES:

SABINE HEAP, GEOFFREY HEAP, ANDREW DAVEY & COURTNEY WHITE

(appellants)

v

LOGAN CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

630 of 2022

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Applicant appeal against part approval

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5, 6, 7 and 9 June 2023

JUDGE:

Williamson KC

ORDER:

The appeal is adjourned to 31 January 2024 for review.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where appeal against respondent’s decision to grant a part approval for a development application seeking approval for reconfiguration of a lot and the making of a material change of use (childcare centre) – where the land is included in the Rural residential zone – whether the childcare centre is appropriately located – whether the childcare centre will have unacceptable character impacts – whether there is non-compliance with the respondent’s planning scheme – whether weight should be given to an amendment to the planning scheme – whether there is a need for the childcare centre – whether there are matters supportive of approval – whether the childcare centre should be approved or refused in the exercise of the discretion under s 60(3) of the Planning Act 2016.

CASES:

Abeleda v Brisbane City Council (2020) 6 QR 441

Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2021] QPELR 987

Harderan Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [1989] 1 Qd R 524

Navara Back Right Wheel Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Ors; Wilhelm v Logan City Council & Ors [2020] QPELR 899

Trinity Park Investments Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council & Ors; Dexus Funds Management Ltd v Fabcot Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QPELR 309

Walker v Noosa Shire Council [1983] 2 Qd R 86

Wilhelm v Logan City Council & Ors [2021] QPELR 1321

LEGISLATION:

Planning Act 2016, ss 45, 59 and 60

Planning and Environment Court Act 2016, s 45

COUNSEL:

Mr M Batty with Mr R Yuen for the appellants

Mr C Hughes KC with Mr B Rix for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Connor O'Meara for the appellants

Minter Ellison Gold Coast for the respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    The appellants seek approval to develop land in the Rural residential zone with a Childcare centre offering 105 long day care places. To obtain approval, an impact assessable development application was made to Council for two development permits, one authorising the reconfiguration of a lot (1 into 2) and the other authorising the making of a material change of use. The development application was publicly notified and attracted 12 properly made submissions. The submissions did not support approval.
  2. [2]
    On 10 March 2022, Council decided to approve the development application in part. The reconfiguration component was approved, subject to conditions. The material change of use was refused. The decision to grant a part approval was communicated by way of decision notice. Reasons for refusing part of the development application are set out in the decision notice.
  3. [3]
    This is an applicant appeal against that part of the decision to refuse the proposed Childcare centre.
  4. [4]
    Council opposes the appeal.
  5. [5]
    It is for the appellants to establish the appeal should be upheld.[1]
  6. [6]
    For reasons that follow, the appellants have not discharged the onus.

The land and surrounding locality

  1. [7]
    The site the subject of the appeal is situated at the corner of New Beith Road and Lyon Drive, New Beith (the Site). This is an outer western suburb of Logan, wedged between two separate parts of the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area.
  2. [8]
    The Site is trapezoidal in shape and 1.009ha in size. The western boundary adjoins New Beith Road. The southern boundary adjoins Lyon Drive. While New Beith Road is a Rural arterial road, both are non-urban type roads. Neither have kerb and channel. Nor do they have footpaths. There is existing vegetation along the frontage of the Site in each of the road reserves.
  3. [9]
    The Site is sloping and elevated above New Beith Road and partly above Lyon Drive.
  4. [10]
    The Site is improved with a single level dwelling and outbuildings. The land surrounding the dwelling and outbuildings is an expanse of lawn with scattered trees. Access is obtained to the Site via New Beith Road.
  5. [11]
    It is uncontroversial the existing use of the Site is rural residential in character. The setting is one where the natural landscape predominates over built form. The dwelling and outbuildings are integrated into the natural landscape.
  6. [12]
    A review of a zoning map forming part of Council’s planning scheme reveals the Site, and surrounding locality to the north, south and east, are included in the Rural residential zone. Visual aids, in combination with the site inspection, confirm this is a reflection of the existing land use character. Save for a few limited exceptions to which I will refer, the area is unmistakeably rural residential in character with a high level of amenity. Dwellings and outbuildings, which are a mix of sizes, styles and ages, are located on large lots in a bushland setting.
  7. [13]
    There are exceptions to the character I described above. The eastern side of New Beith Road includes an area of rural residential development. It also includes an area that was described by the visual amenity experts as ‘broader bushland setting’. This is made good having regard to aerial photography and the zoning maps.  The maps indicate a parcel of land to the east of the Site is included within the Environmental management and conservation zone. It is unimproved and adds to the bushland setting of the area. To the north of the Site is a Community facility site used for electrical transmission infrastructure. It has frontage to New Beith Road. Visual aids reveal the facility is well set back and concealed from New Beith Road by vegetation. It does not detract from the rural residential character of the area.

The proposed development

  1. [14]
    The development application seeks a development permit to authorise: (1) the reconfiguration of a lot (1 into 2 lots); and (2) the start of a new use on the Site. Lot 1, which coincides with the location of the existing house, has an area of 4,013m2. Lot 2 has an area of 6,078m2. All existing structures are to be demolished. The Childcare centre is proposed on Lot 2. An experienced operator has been secured for the Childcare centre, namely AppleBerries. It owns and operates six Childcare centres in South East Queensland.
  2. [15]
    The proposed Childcare centre is depicted in a series of proposed plans. A review of the plans reveal the terrain of the Site will be modified to create a level platform for a single storey structure. The structure will have a gross floor area of 782m2. Having regard to the area of Lot 2 and the gross floor area of the Childcare centre, site cover will be less than 20%.
  3. [16]
    Specific features of the design that should be noted are:
    1. substantial setbacks are provided to the eastern and northern boundaries (greater than 20 metres and up to 35 metres);
    2. terraced setback areas are provided to both street frontages, which are landscaped;
    3. a singular vehicle access is provided from Lyon Drive;
    4. an at-grade carpark in the order of 900m2 is accessed via Lyon Drive and provides 27 carparks and space for servicing and refuse collection vehicles to safely enter, manoeuvre and exit; and
    5. acoustic fencing is proposed along the northern and eastern boundaries to mitigate noise impacts for rural residential properties adjoining a play area and at-grade carpark.
  4. [17]
    I accept the plans of development, photomontages and the statement of Mr Reid,[2] taken in combination, make good that the Childcare centre will be a modern and attractive facility.
  5. [18]
    Considerable landscaping is proposed along the boundaries of the Site, in the children’s play area, and carpark. This landscaping, in combination with existing vegetation in the road reserve, is relied upon to conceal the development from the public realm. Concealment is relied upon to integrate the development, and achieve compatibility with the surrounding rural residential land use character. It is also relied upon to achieve a bushland or landscape setting. This setting is intended to deliver a visual outcome whereby vegetation predominates over built form.
  6. [19]
    The plans of development and photomontages comfortably demonstrate the built form will sit in a landscaped setting. Subject to one qualification, it will be concealed when viewed from the public realm. The qualification is needed because there is a break in the vegetation where vehicle access is provided from Lyon Drive. At this point, a filtered view is available of the built form and the at-grade carpark. While the built form and carpark appear to sit in a landscaped setting, they are undeniably non-residential in character.
  7. [20]
    Dr McGowan was of the opinion that the vegetation in the road reserve was critical to concealing the development from view. He explained in his oral evidence that this vegetation provides an informal bushland setting, consistent with the area. Absent the vegetation in the road reserve, the landscaping proposed would, as Dr McGowan pointed out, have a more formal and structured appearance. This was explained by Dr McGowan in the following exchange during cross-examination:

“…Where we differ is the importance of the verge landscaping to provide a predominance of landscaping in a more informal bushland setting and more substantial vegetation. Without that, what, I think, is going to be seen is these sorts of bands of vegetation stepping up the site, which will not have that natural, informal appearance.

It’s still acceptable, though, isn’t it? It’s not better, but it’s still acceptable, correct?---It would be effective in screening – as I’ve said, screening the building, screening the walls. It just won’t provide that bushland setting, the semi-rural…the predominantly landscaped setting that’s being sought.

So the answer to my question is yes?---No, the answer is no.

The answer is no. And is that because of, as I understand it, effectively what you’re referring to in the first sentence of paragraph 49(c), namely the appearance of informality that is created by the vegetation in the road reserve?---The appearance of informality, yes, which is part of that bushland setting. But it’s also the substance in the scale that that vegetation in the road reserves provide, which is also part of the bushland setting.”

  1. [21]
    Visual aids make good Dr McGowan’s evidence. The vegetation in the road reserve is required for the development to achieve a bushland setting. It will assist in the integration of the built form into the rural residential character of the area. If it were to be removed, the landscaping that remains to screen the built form will be more formal and structured in appearance in comparison to the existing landscape character of the area. While a bushland setting would be more attractive, the formalised or structured appearance is not, in my view, unacceptable. The visual aids depicting the development absent trees in the road reserve demonstrate the built form will still sit in a landscape setting. They also demonstrate that the built form will integrate acceptably into the landscape character of the area.

Properly made submissions

  1. [22]
    As I have already observed, the development application was publicly notified and attracted 12 submissions. I have reviewed each of the submissions. They oppose approval of the Childcare centre.
  2. [23]
    The submissions state a number of grounds to warrant refusal. They can be summarised as follows:
    1. the Site is an inappropriate location for a Childcare centre;
    2. the Childcare centre will have unacceptable traffic, amenity, character and wildlife impacts;
    3. the proposed development conflicts with the planning scheme; and
    4. there is an oversupply of Childcare centres in the area.
  3. [24]
    The submissions, which form part of the common material, must be taken into account in the assessment of the development application. The extent to which they ultimately inform, and assist, the exercise of the discretion under s 60(3) of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act) cannot, however, be resolved in isolation. The submissions, and their substance, need to be examined against the planning scheme. They also need to be considered with the benefit of other evidence, including evidence with respect to character and amenity impacts.
  4. [25]
    It should be observed that the submissions were made having regard to an earlier form of the development and without the benefit of the evidence now before the Court. Even allowing for this, for reasons that follow, points made in the submissions about the location of the use, adverse impacts, and non-compliance with the planning scheme were well made. These points do not favour approval and ought be given weight in the exercise of the discretion.

The statutory assessment and decision making regime

  1. [26]
    The statutory assessment and decision-making framework for this appeal is prescribed by the Act. The Act requires, among other things, the development application be assessed in accordance with s 45(5) and decided in accordance with ss 59(3) and 60.
  2. [27]
    Section 45(5)(a)(i) of the Act mandates assessment against assessment benchmarks in a categorising instrument. Section 45(7) confirms the reference to an assessment benchmark is one in effect when the development application was properly made. Here, that captures version 8 of Council’s 2015 Planning Scheme (the planning scheme).
  3. [28]
    Section 45(8) of the Act permits weight to be given to an amendment to the planning scheme, which took effect after the development application was properly made. In this case, this captures version 9 of the planning scheme. This took effect in February 2023 and includes, for the first time, a Childcare centre code.
  4. [29]
    The statutory assessment framework is to be approached consistently with the following Court of Appeal authorities, namely: Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2021] QPELR 987; Abeleda v Brisbane City Council (2020) 6 QR 441; Wilhelm v Logan City Council & Ors [2021] QPELR 1321; and Trinity Park Investments Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council & Ors; Dexus Funds Management Ltd v Fabcot Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QPELR 309. Having regard to these authorities, it can be observed:
    1. the ultimate decision called for when making an impact assessment under ss 45 and 60 of the Act is a ‘broad, evaluative judgment’;[3]
    2. in contrast to its statutory predecessor, the discretion conferred by s 60(3) of the Act admits of more flexibility to approve an application in the face of non-compliance with a planning scheme;
    3. the exercise of the discretion under s 60(3) of the Act is subject to three requirements, including that it be based upon the assessment carried out under s 45;[4] and
    4. the Act does not alter the characterisation of a planning scheme – it remains a reflection of the public interest.[5]

The disputed issues

  1. [30]
    A review of the decision notice, and the agreed list of issues before the Court, reveals the case for refusal is founded on three points: (1) the Childcare centre will have an unacceptable impact on character; (2) the Childcare centre does not comply with the planning scheme, in particular the Rural residential zone code and the Strategic framework; and (3) there is no town planning reason to support approval in the face of items (1) and (2).
  2. [31]
    The appellants join issue with these reasons, and advanced matters said to favour approval. One such matter is the existence of a town planning need, which it is said can be met by the proposed development with an absence of impact. Reliance is also placed upon demonstrated compliance with the recently adopted Childcare centre code to support approval.
  3. [32]
    Given the positions adopted by the parties, I will consider the disputed issues by reference to the following questions:
  1. Does the proposed development comply with the Rural residential zone code in the planning scheme?
  2. Does the proposed development comply with the Strategic framework in the planning scheme?
  3. Does the proposed development comply with the Childcare centre code?
  4. Are there matters supportive of approval, including town planning need?

Compliance with the Rural residential zone code

  1. [33]
    The planning scheme area is divided into 15 zones, one of which is the Rural residential zone. The Site is included in the Rural residential zone.
  2. [34]
    The Rural residential zone is divided into four precincts.  The Site is included in the Park residential precinct.
  3. [35]
    The Rural residential zone code is to be found in s 6.2.13 of the planning scheme.
  4. [36]
    The local government purpose of the zone is stated in s 6.2.13.2 as follows:

“1.  The purpose of the Rural residential zone is to provide for residential uses and activities on large lots, including lots for which the local government has not provided infrastructure and services.”

  1. [37]
    The purpose of the zone code is stated in s 6.2.13.2 as follows:

“2.  The local government purpose of the Rural residential zone code is to:

a.  predominantly provide for Dwelling houses on larger lots;

b.  provide for development in a semi-rural, landscaped or bushland setting;

c.  protect rural residential amenity.”

  1. [38]
    The purpose of the zone code is achieved through a number of Overall outcomes. For this appeal, the Overall outcomes include:

“3.  The purpose of the Rural residential zone code will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:

a.  the design of the built form:

i.  responds to site characteristics, including the shape, frontage, size, orientation and slope;

ii.  produces a built form that is compatible with the semi-rural, landscaped or bushland setting;

iii.  provides that the semi-rural, landscaped or bushland setting predominates over the built form;

iv.  incorporates appropriate boundary clearances to protect and provide privacy for residents;

v.  ensures it is easily and safely accessed;

b.  development protects amenity consistent with its location in the Rural residential zone or precinct and the surrounding area;

f.  in the Park residential precinct:

i.  land use comprise Caretaker's accommodation, Dual occupancy (auxiliary unit), Dwelling house, Emergency services, Home-based business or Sales office;

ii. development has a landscaped or bushland setting.”

  1. [39]
    The plans of development, considered with the photomontages prepared for the appeal, demonstrate the built form responds appropriately to Overall outcomes 3(a)(i) and (iv). Indeed, it was common ground the design would protect the privacy of nearby residents.
  2. [40]
    To examine compliance with Overall outcomes 3(a)(ii) and (iii), the visual amenity experts considered the built form in conjunction with the proposed landscaping regime and surrounding character. The purpose for doing so was to assess the extent to which the development was compatible, and integrated, with the surrounding land use and landscape character. This examination supports a finding that compliance is demonstrated with Overall outcomes 3(a)(ii) and (iii). I accept this evidence. It was made good having regard to the plans and photomontages for the development. Those visual aids, taken in combination, reflect that compliance is achieved because of the extensive landscaping regime (existing and proposed) concealing the built form from view. The landscaping is, in this sense, critical to the acceptability of the development. It is critical for demonstrating compliance with the planning scheme. Absent the vegetated screen, built form, including an expansive at-grade carpark, would be visually dominant and, overall, read as a large non-residential built form in a rural residential area. This would not integrate with the character of the surrounding rural residential area.
  3. [41]
    Evidence was led by Council to contend there is a risk that vegetation in New Beith Road may be removed as part of a future road upgrade by Council. The evidence included a concept design for the upgrade. The concept suggests vegetation is at risk of removal, or interference, along the New Beith Road and Lyon Drive frontages of the Site.
  4. [42]
    I do not accept the assessment of the development application should proceed on the footing that vegetation may be removed, or impacted, as a consequence of a future road upgrade by Council. To do otherwise, in my view, would confer a status on the concept design it does not deserve. The design has not been adopted or endorsed by Council. It was prepared for further consideration by Council. The concept falls well short of being a well-considered proposal identifying the final alignment of New Beith Road relative to the boundaries of the Site.
  5. [43]
    If a contrary view is adopted, and the visual acceptability of the proposed development was assessed without reference to the vegetation in the road reserve, there is an impact. As I have already said, the resulting appearance of the development would, consistent with Dr McGowan’s evidence, have a more structured and formal appearance. This is not unacceptable. It would not lead to an unacceptable impact on the character of the surrounding area. Compliance with Overall outcomes 3(a)(ii) and (iii) is still achieved.
  6. [44]
    Council raised non-compliance with Overall outcome 3(a)(v) for the first time in oral submissions. This provision requires the design of built form to ensure it is easily and safely accessible. While it is unfortunate this allegation was made late in the proceeding and without explanation, it should be ventilated notwithstanding opposition by the appellants. The reason for doing so is that the issue goes to a matter of public safety. I am not satisfied it is appropriate in this case to put an issue of this kind to one side.
  7. [45]
    The proposed plans show that access is proposed from a single vehicular driveway to Lyon Drive. The traffic engineers agreed sight distances for this access were acceptable and no auxiliary turn lanes were required to ensure safe and efficient operation. It was also agreed that service vehicle manoeuvring would be acceptable. I accept this evidence.
  8. [46]
    The same cannot be said for active transport options for cyclists and pedestrians. At present, the existing road and verge infrastructure does not include kerb, channel and footpaths. The traffic engineers agreed pedestrians and cyclists could not, in these circumstances, safely access the Site. To remedy this, it was recommended that a concrete footpath be provided along either side of Lyon Drive in the section between New Beith Road and Crystal Brook Road. Evidence was led to establish that the path could be constructed with different materials (such as timber) to ensure it is in keeping with the rural residential character of the area.
  9. [47]
    I accept the solution recommended by the traffic engineers, if conditioned, would address pedestrian safety concerns. As a consequence, compliance with Overall outcome 3(a)(v) of the Rural residential zone code, insofar as it relates to pedestrian safely, can be achieved by way of imposition of conditions.
  10. [48]
    Council did not accept that a condition could be lawfully imposed for the footpath works. It advanced the proposition that the Court’s power on appeal does not extend to imposing a condition, which, in substance, would require the Council as road authority to do, or refrain from doing an act, in relation to the road reserve. This can be accepted as a general statement of the law: Harderan Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [1989] 1 Qd R 524. With this in mind, Council said the Court did not have power to impose a condition requiring the footpath works because it would, in effect, require Council as the road authority to accept it, and take up the associated maintenance.
  11. [49]
    The evidence led by Council in support of this point was underwhelming. It constituted a letter from Council’s solicitor to the appellants’ solicitor. The letter set out instructions that had been received in relation to the footpath works. The instructions are consistent with the position taken in the appeal but not supported by evidence. The instructions are no more than assertions. No weight should be given to the instructions.
  12. [50]
    For the instructions to be given weight, it was incumbent on Council, in my view, to lead evidence establishing: (1) the identity of the person who gave the instructions; (2) the instrument that is said to confer authority on the person to give the instructions; and (3) the reasons, if any, why the instructions were given by the authorised person. Importantly, this evidence, if led, could have been tested by the appellants. They were denied this opportunity.
  13. [51]
    In these circumstances, the exercise of the discretion should proceed on the footing that Council, as the road authority, has a discretion to accept the footpath works in its road reserve. Whether that discretion is favourably exercised is a matter for future consideration: Walker v Noosa Shire Council [1983] 2 Qd R 86.
  14. [52]
    While the exercise of the discretion will proceed on the basis that a condition could be imposed in relation to the footpath works, I was not persuaded, even allowing for a timber design, that it would be in keeping with the rural residential character of the area. The locality does not have a network of footpaths providing connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists. To state the obvious point, footpaths are consistent with a more urbanised character. The very presence of the footpath works would, in my view, be an indicator that the use of the Site is not rural residential in nature.
  15. [53]
    This is not to say that a footpath would be unacceptable in and of itself. It needs to be taken in conjunction with a number of features of the proposal that have a non-residential character and will be evident from the public realm. Those features are the at-grade carpark and the level of non-residential activity associated with the use. These features combine to confirm the land use is a standalone non-residential use in a sea of rural residential development. It will be out of character and adversely impact on the rural residential area, which presently enjoys high amenity. An adverse impact on the character of the area will, in my view, sound in an intangible and adverse impact on amenity.
  16. [54]
    An impact of this kind is relevant to an assessment of the development against Overall outcome 3(b). The Overall outcome requires development in the Rural residential zone to protect amenity, consistent with its location in the zone, precinct and surrounding area.
  17. [55]
    Mr Buckley, the town planner retained by the appellants, was of the view that the proposed development complied with Overall outcome 3(b). There is merit in Mr Buckley’s opinion. It is supported by Council’s concession that hard amenity impacts (such as noise emissions) do not warrant refusal. These impacts can be the subject of conditions. Mr Buckley’s view is also supported by the photomontages, which depict the built form in its context. When appreciated in its context, the built form will be, in terms of scale and presentation, compatible with the surrounding area.
  18. [56]
    For reasons I have already given, compatibility with the surrounding area is achieved by reliance on landscaping to shroud the built form so it is all but invisible from adjoining residences and the public domain. I have little doubt considerable thought has been given to the landscaping regime to achieve this outcome. Save for an opening through the access driveway, the built form, if approved, would be concealed from view.
  19. [57]
    While I was grateful for Mr Buckley’s assistance, I prefer the evidence of Mr Ovenden in relation to amenity impacts. The primary reason for this is that Mr Buckley did not give sufficient weight to the level of activity associated with the proposed use in contrast to surrounding rural residential uses.
  20. [58]
    The surrounding land uses are dwellings on large lots. The intensity of development is very low density. The activity associated with these uses is also low intensity. By way of example, there is an expectation that dwellings may generate somewhere between 7 to 9 traffic movements per day. This is to be contrasted with the proposed development, which is a non-residential use to be patronised by up to 105 children and support staff. The activity associated with this use will be high. Mr Ovenden put this well in the following passage of the town planning joint report:

“126. Rural residential areas are, by their nature, very low density environments. Whilst they might include large houses and sheds, the intensity of activity is generally low.

  1. The proposal would introduce a high intensity activity into this area. There would be 105 children, plus staff, on the site at any one time during operating hours. There would be a confluence of activity at morning drop off and afternoon pick up times. There are inherent impacts associated with such activity. It would be a hive of activity which would be in contrast to the activity in Lyon Drive and beyond in the road network to the east.
  1. It is for the other experts to advise within their respective disciplines regarding transport impacts, noise impacts, visual amenity impacts etc. But the cumulative impact must also be considered.
  1. The noise levels might be within acceptable limits, but there will be noise. The transport network might be able to operate safely, but there will be a lot of vehicle movements each day, converging on the site. The building might be screened by vegetation. But initially the retaining walls facing the streets will appear stark (until landscaping takes effect) and for local residents passing by on Lyon Drive or living opposite, it will still look like a childcare centre, particularly when viewed from the car park entrance.”
  1. [59]
    Mr Ovenden’s view, which I accept, is that the activity associated with the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the rural residential character of the locality. The activity is non-residential in nature and will intrude into a rural residential area enjoying high amenity. The intrusion will be perceptible in terms of noise. There will also be visual cues. They include cars coming in and out of the Site, the presence of the footpath and the filtered view of the at-grade carpark and non-residential built form through the break in vegetation for access.
  2. [60]
    I am not persuaded compliance has been demonstrated with Overall outcome 3(b) of the Rural residential zone code.
  3. [61]
    Overall outcome 3(f) applies to the Park residential precinct. The provision states:

“f.  in the Park residential precinct:

  1. land uses comprise Caretaker’s accommodation, Dual occupancy (auxiliary unit), Dwelling house, Emergency services, Home-based business or Sales office;
  1. development has a landscaped or bushland setting.”
  1. [62]
    This Overall outcome is complemented by Performance outcome PO1 and Acceptable outcome AO1 of the same code. Relevant to the Park residential precinct they state:

“A use in the Rural residential zone is for uses identified in:

d. Section 6.2.13(2)(3)(f)(i) overall outcomes for the Park residential precinct.”

  1. [63]
    The proposed Childcare centre is not one of the uses identified in Overall outcome 3(f)(i).
  2. [64]
    In Navara Back Right Wheel Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Ors; Wilhelm v Logan City Council & Ors [2020] QPELR 899 at [166] to [174], I considered what, if any, planning consequence follows where a proposed use is not included in the list provided by Overall outcome 3(f). As paragraphs [171] and [172] of the reasons explain, the planning consequence is to be assessed having regard to: (1) the extent to which the zone code anticipates non-residential uses; and (2) an assessment of the development against specific controls for the zone, particularly in relation to amenity and character.
  3. [65]
    It can be accepted that the zone code here admits of the prospect that non-residential uses may be appropriate in the zone. While the list of such uses is modest, impacts from non-residential development ought be expected in the zone. The impacts must however be examined having regard to the controls found in, among other things, the zone code.
  4. [66]
    A relevant control is Overall outcome 3(b) of the Rural residential zone code. For the reasons given above, compliance has not been established with this Overall outcome. Non-compliance, considered together with an assessment of the development against Overall outcome 3(f), suggests the proposed Childcare centre is not anticipated, let alone appropriate, in the zone. This is so, despite the development demonstrating compliance with: (1) s 3.11.2.1 of the Strategic framework insofar as it relates to built form (and not land use); and (2) Overall outcome 3(a) of the Rural residential zone code; and (3) development parameters prescribed in Table 6.2.13.3.1 of the Rural residential zone code with respect to building design, site cover, amenity (general emissions) and precinct specific built form considerations.
  5. [67]
    Section 3.11.3.1(1)(c) of the Strategic framework reinforces that non-compliance with Overall outcome 3(b) and 3(f)(i) should not be lightly dismissed. The provision states:

“The level of amenity to be expected varies throughout Logan where:

c. in rural residential locations, such as in a Rural residential zone, the level of amenity is commensurate with a rural residential environment where:

i. there are very low density living environments with some low level noise, odour and visual amenity impacts;…”

  1. [68]
    I have had regard to this provision when assessing the development against, among other things, Overall outcomes 3(b) and 3(f)(i) of the Rural residential zone code.  While the provision creates an expectation that the amenity of a rural residential location will be impacted by ‘some low level noise, odour and visual impacts’, the evidence establishes that the impacts of the proposed development will go beyond what is anticipated in the zone.
  2. [69]
    This does not mark the end of an assessment against the Rural residential zone code. It was common ground that compliance could be demonstrated with the code in one of two ways, namely: (1) through compliance with the Overall outcomes; or alternatively; (2) through compliance with the Performance outcomes in Table 6.2.13.3.1. Council alleged non-compliance with Performance outcome PO1(d) (and its accompanying Acceptable outcome AO1(d)).
  3. [70]
    Performance outcome PO1(d) and its accompanying Acceptable outcome are set out above. The proposed Childcare centre is not one of the uses identified in the Overall outcome called up by the Performance outcome or Acceptable outcome. For the reasons given above in relation to Overall outcome 3(f), I am not satisfied compliance has been demonstrated with PO1 of the zone code.
  4. [71]
    I pause to observe that Performance outcome PO24 of the zone code is specific to the precinct in which the Site is included. The provision states:

“The built form does not dominate the landscape or bushland setting.”

  1. [72]
    The visual aids (primarily the plans and photomontages) comfortably demonstrate compliance with this provision of the zone code. Compliance is achieved even assuming the vegetation in the road reserve is removed. The built form would not, even allowing for the removal of vegetation in the road reserve, dominate the ‘landscape’ setting.
  2. [73]
    For the reasons given above, the exercise of the discretion will proceed on the footing that: (1) the proposed Childcare centre will have an adverse impact on character and amenity; (2) by reason of (1), the proposed Childcare centre will not protect the amenity of the surrounding area; and (3) the proposed Childcare centre is inconsistent with the type of development intended for the Rural residential zone.

Compliance with the Strategic framework

  1. [74]
    A point pressed with particular force by Council was founded upon an asserted forward planning policy. The policy, it was said, was articulated in the Strategic framework of the planning scheme, which is, in turn, implemented through the zones. Council contended the forward planning policy was to the effect that Childcare centres are directed to the urban footprint away from, among other things, standalone sites in the Rural residential zone. Non-compliance was alleged with the Strategic framework on the basis that the Site was not an appropriate location for the proposed use.
  2. [75]
    The Strategic framework sets the policy direction for the planning scheme and ‘forms the basis for ensuring appropriate development occurs in the planning scheme area for the life of the planning scheme’: s 3.1(1).  To describe the policy direction, the Strategic framework is structured to include, among other things, eleven themes, which collectively represent the policy intent of the planning scheme: s 3.1(3)(b).  A theme of relevance to this appeal is ‘settlement pattern’.  The intended settlement pattern for the planning scheme area is mapped for the Strategic framework.  A review of the mapping (SFM-1) reveals the Site is included in the Rural living area and outside of the urban footprint.
  3. [76]
    The Specific outcomes for the Rural living area, which corresponds to the same area under the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, are in the following terms:

“3.3.6.1 Specific outcomes

  1. The Rural living area has a rural residential character defined by:

a. dwelling houses on large lots;

b. the predominance of the natural landscape over buildings and structures;

c. buildings and structures that are integrated with the natural landscape.

  1. The rural living area accesses community infrastructure and services from the urban footprint.
  1. Rural communities are to access urban services such as retail, commercial, and community uses from the rural towns in the urban footprint such as Jimboomba and Logan Village and these services are not to be provided in the rural living area.
  1. The rural living area is the only location for rural residential subdivision outside the urban footprint.”
  1. [77]
    Subsections 2 and 3 above were the subject of particular focus in this appeal.  Council relied upon both provisions to support the proposition that there is a clear policy statement in the Strategic framework calling for refusal of the proposed development. In reference to Subsections 2 and 3 above, Council emphasised that the development was of a kind that: (1) is ‘not to be provided in the rural living area’; and (2) was directed to the urban footprint in any event.  This point, at first blush, has superficial attraction, but I do not accept this is how Subsections 2 and 3 should be approached in this case.
  2. [78]
    To properly consider the above provisions, it is necessary to set out some definitions in the planning scheme.
  3. [79]
    Subsection 2 includes the phrase ‘community infrastructure’. This is defined in the planning scheme to mean:

“Any of the following uses:

  1. Childcare centre; or

  1. Emergency services; or…”
  1. [80]
    Subsection 3 includes the phrase ‘community uses’. This is a defined in the planning scheme as follows:

“Community use means the use of premises for—

a. providing artistic, social or cultural facilities or community services to the public; or

b. preparing and selling food and drink, if the use is ancillary to the use in paragraph (a).

Examples of a community use—

Art gallery, community centre, community hall, library, museum.”

  1. [81]
    Starting with Subsection 3, it speaks of ‘Rural communities’ accessing urban services. The type of services falling within this phrase are qualified by what follows, namely ‘such as retail, commercial and community uses’. It is these services that are the subject of the expression of planning policy. The policy is a simple one; these services are not to be provided in the rural living area.
  2. [82]
    I was not satisfied the policy necessarily applied to this appeal.
  3. [83]
    The policy stated in Subsection 3 speaks of urban services. While a Childcare centre provided in an urban area may be regarded as an urban service, this is not apt to describe the subject proposal; it sits in a different context. It is not proposed in an urban area. Nor is it commercial or retail in function. The proposed development is a standalone facility intended to serve a rural residential catchment, akin to community infrastructure. This, in my view, suggests there is good reason to doubt whether Subsection 3 is intended to apply to the proposed development.
  4. [84]
    To this, I would add there are matters particular to the drafting of Subsections 2 and 3 that, in my view, serve to confirm the policy position advanced by Council is not engaged in this appeal. In the first instance, Subsection 3 is an expression of planning policy that seeks to limit the use of land in the Rural living area for urban services. Juxtaposed with this limitation is Subsection 2. This juxtaposition suggests Subsection 2 has different work to do. Reference to its terms confirms it is a specific provision, carving out a particular use category, namely community infrastructure. Different words of limitation are also adopted in the carve out in comparison to Subsection 3. For community infrastructure, Subsection 2 directs these uses to the urban footprint but, unlike Subsection 3, does not expressly preclude them from being located in the Rural living area. This difference, in my view, is deliberate. It admits of the prospect that community infrastructure, while directed to the urban footprint, may be provided outside of the urban footprint and in the Rural living area to ensure such areas are conveniently and equitably served by community infrastructure. This prospect is not a fanciful one. It can be demonstrated by one example in the Rural residential zone code. Having regard to the code and definition of community infrastructure, it can be seen that ‘Emergency services’ is a use expressly anticipated in the Rural residential zone and precinct where the Site is included:
    s 6.2.13.2(3)(f)(i).
  5. [85]
    In light of the above, I have approached the exercise of the discretion on the footing that, contrary to Council’s case, Subsection 3 does not express a forward planning policy of direct application to this appeal. It is Subsection 2 that has application. It directs a use of the kind proposed to the urban footprint. The Site is not located in the urban footprint.
  6. [86]
    What follows by reason that the Site is not located in the urban footprint?
  7. [87]
    In my view, it does not immediately follow there is non-compliance with the planning scheme. It is necessary to turn to other parts of the Strategic framework for guidance, particularly those parts prescribing locational requirements for community infrastructure. One such provision is s 3.7.2.1.
  8. [88]
    Section 3.7.2.1 is a Specific outcome for the community infrastructure element. The provision is in the following terms:

“1. People of all ages and abilities have equitable access to community infrastructure that is designed and developed to respond to local community needs.

2. Community infrastructure is provided that:

a. is well located and accessible to accommodation activities, public transport, employment and education uses;

b. is co-located and integrated with compatible uses;

c. is adaptable, to minimise the cost of the infrastructure and to provide a range of functions to the community;

d. provides equitable access to a variety of users in a way that meets community needs.”

  1. [89]
    Section 1.3.3 of the planning scheme provides that the word ‘and’ is to be read after each of the semicolons in Subsection 2 above.  This has the effect that the subsection provides a series of cumulative requirements, one of which is that community infrastructure is to be co-located and integrated with compatible uses.
  2. [90]
    Mr Ovenden helpfully explained the importance of co-location for Childcare centres. He agreed that Childcare centres may be appropriate in a variety of contexts, but explained, in his experience, they are generally directed to locations where they are in a centre, co-located with other community infrastructure, within a walkable catchment, accessible via a higher order road, and on a site where impacts can be appropriately managed. Co-location was said to deliver particular benefits in terms of accessibility and convenience for the public. I did not understand Mr Buckley to disagree with this. He focused his attention on the importance of equitable access to Childcare facilities to meet a demonstrated need.
  3. [91]
    If it is accepted there is a need for additional Childcare centres which can be provided on the Site to achieve equitable and convenient access to such a facility, this does not satisfy all of the cumulative requirements of s 3.7.2.1. The proposed development, if approved, would not be co-located and integrated with compatible uses. It would be a standalone facility in a sea of rural residential development. The benefits of co-location would not be achieved.
  4. [92]
    Once this is appreciated, and taken in combination with the findings made above about adverse impacts on character and amenity, it is fair to conclude the Site does not find support in the Strategic framework as an appropriate location for a Childcare centre. The exercise of the discretion will proceed on this footing.

Childcare centre code

  1. [93]
    As I have already observed, version 8 of the planning scheme was amended in February 2023 to introduce a new use code; the Childcare centre code.  While the code was not in effect when the development application was properly made, it may be given weight in the exercise of the discretion under s 60 of the Act: see ss 45(5)(b) and (8).
  2. [94]
    Given the Childcare centre code has been in force for some 10 months, and represents a recent statement of Council’s planning intent, it should be given weight.  Two questions, however, arise: (1) for what purpose should the code be given weight?; and (2) how much weight?
  3. [95]
    Council contends an assessment against the Childcare centre code yields non-compliance.  It is not suggested this should be decisive of the appeal.  It is said that weight should be given to the non-compliance as a matter pointing towards refusal rather than approval.
  4. [96]
    Does the proposed development comply with the Childcare centre code?
  5. [97]
    This question, in my view, is resolved in the negative.
  6. [98]
    The purpose of the Childcare centre code is as follows (s 9.3.1.2(1)):

“The purpose of this code is to provide for accessible and safe childcare facilities that serve community needs and are compatible with the surrounding area.”

  1. [99]
    The proposed development does not start on a good footing with the purpose of the code. While it can be accepted the development will be accessible and safe, the evidence falls short of demonstrating it will be compatible with the surrounding area. This is, as Mr Ovenden explained, primarily due to the level of non-residential activity it would introduce into a rural residential area enjoying high amenity.  The level of non-residential activity will be inconsistent with the character and amenity of the surrounding area.
  2. [100]
    Incongruity with the Childcare centre code is not limited to its purpose.
  3. [101]
    Noncompliance also arises with Overall outcomes 2(a)(ii) and 2(c) of the code, which are in the following terms:

“The purpose of the code will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:

a. A Childcare centre is located and designed to:

ii. provide levels of comfort, quiet, privacy, safety and amenity reasonably expected for the zone and precinct;

c. A Childcare centre is designed to minimise off-site amenity impacts on surrounding residential land.…”

  1. [102]
    For reasons already given, the design of the proposed development will not minimise off-site amenity impacts. Nor has the development been located and designed to provide a level of amenity reasonably expected in the Park living precinct of the Rural residential zone. This is due to the Site being in the wrong location for a Childcare centre of the scale and intensity proposed.
  2. [103]
    Compliance can be demonstrated with the Childcare centre code in one of two ways.  First, through compliance with the Overall outcomes.  Alternatively, compliance can be demonstrated with the Performance outcomes stated in Table 9.3.1.3.1 of the same code.
  3. [104]
    An assessment against the Performance outcomes in the table yields partial, but not complete, compliance. The proposed development does not comply with Performance outcome PO1 and the accompanying Acceptable outcome AO1.  These provisions are relevant to the locational issue raised by Council (by reference to the Strategic framework) and are in the following terms:

PO1

A Childcare centre is conveniently accessible and located in close proximity to other facilities such as Shopping centres and Educational establishments.

AO1

A Childcare centre is located in the:

  1. Centre zone; or
  1. Community facilities zone where in the Community purposes precinct or Education precinct; or
  1. Mixed use zone were in the Retail/commerce precinct; or
  1. Specialised centre zone; or
  1. Residential zone category where:
  1. not in the Acreage precinct or Small acreage precinct;
  1. located on a premises that contains or adjoins an existing Educational establishment.
  1. [105]
    The appellants accept the proposed development does not satisfy Acceptable outcome AO1.  It is, as a consequence, necessary to turn to the accompanying Performance outcome, PO1.
  2. [106]
    It can be accepted that the proposed Childcare centre would be accessible to the southern part of the catchment identified by the economists, Mr Duane and Mr Norling. There is, however, difficulty with the balance of PO1. The centre would not be located in close proximity to other facilities, such as Shopping centres or Educational establishments.  It would be a stand-alone centre in a sea of rural residential development.  Non-compliance follows with PO1.
  3. [107]
    It can be observed that Performance outcome PO10 of the Childcare centre code calls for the examination of need where land is located in a residential zone category or on premises identified for a future residential zone. The Site is not located in a residential zone category. Nor is it identified as falling within a future residential zone. This has the consequence that PO10 does not apply to the proposed development. If a contrary view was taken, for reasons given later, I am satisfied a need has been demonstrated.
  4. [108]
    While compliance can be assumed with particular parts of the Childcare centre code, there is not complete compliance. This does not favour approval.  In terms of weight, non-compliance is not decisive, let alone sufficient to attract significant weight. This is because the non-compliance arises out of the same findings that work non-compliance with the Rural residential zone code and the Strategic framework. It is these non-compliances that give the refusal case its force.

Grounds relied upon in support of approval

  1. [109]
    The appellants contend there are matters established on the evidence that support approval and should be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion.  The grounds relied upon can be identified as follows:
    1. there is a need for the proposed Childcare centre;
    2. the Site is ideally located to serve the needs of the catchment population;
    3. the proposed Childcare centre can be provided on the Site to meet an identified need, absent unacceptable impacts; and
    4. the proposed Childcare centre complies with, or can be conditioned to comply with, assessment benchmarks.
  2. [110]
    For the reasons given above, I do not accept the Childcare centre will have no unacceptable impacts. Nor do I accept that it complies, or can be conditioned to comply, with the planning scheme. The grounds identified in paragraphs [109](c) and (d) have therefore not been established.
  3. [111]
    The issue of need and the catchment to be served by the proposed development are in a different position.
  4. [112]
    The appellants contend there is a need for the proposed development.  This is not a difficult proposition to accept.
  5. [113]
    As a starting point, land use planning seeks to, among other things, facilitate a land use structure optimising safe, comfortable and convenient living for all.  This necessarily requires a planning authority to make appropriate provision in its adopted planning controls for services and facilities required to meet the legitimate needs of a community.  One use for which there is a legitimate need is Childcare centres, including long day care centres.
  6. [114]
    Mr Buckley and Mr Ovenden suggest it can be accepted, as a general proposition, that there is a significant demand for Childcare centres in Queensland.  The demand is fuelled, in part, by government policy and incentives. The demand is also reflective of the inherent nature of the use; it is an essential piece of community infrastructure facilitating parents, particularly women, maintaining participation in or re-entering the workforce.
  7. [115]
    Given Childcare centres are an essential piece of community infrastructure, the bar should not, in my view, be set too high to demonstrate a need. This is not to say, however, that a need will be established in every case simply because a Childcare centre is proposed.  It is necessary to look at the particular facts and circumstances of each case, including evidence going to the demand and supply balance. 
  8. [116]
    To undertake this task, I had the benefit of evidence from two economists, Mr Duane and Mr Norling. They produced a joint report. 
  9. [117]
    Map 2 of the joint report sets out an agreed catchment.  It comprises four sectors.  The Site is located in the southern sector, north of the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area.  During the course of the appeal, the appellants’ case in relation to need narrowed to focus on only a small part of the catchment.  They focused on the southern part of the southern sector.  In that area, Mr Duane said there was a population of 2,500 to 3,000 residents that do not have immediate access to long day care Childcare facilities.  Assuming all demand for long day care Childcare facilities would come from the southern part of the southern sector, the evidence suggests this population can support a facility offering between 90 and 108 places.  It would be a viable centre, having an occupancy rate of between 70 to 77%. 
  10. [118]
    It was also pointed out on behalf of the appellants that there was no existing facility in the southern part of the southern sector, meaning an approval would improve competition and choice for Childcare facilities in this part of Council’s local government area. This, it was said, was important, given there was no suggestion the facility would have an adverse impact on the centres hierarchy identified in the planning scheme.
  11. [119]
    This evidence, in conjunction with: (1) the anecdotal knowledge about the demand for Childcare centres in Queensland; and (2) the identification of an experienced operator to take up the running of the proposed facility; is sufficient, in my view, to establish there is a need for a Childcare centre to serve the identified catchment in the southern part of the southern sector. The Site is conveniently located to service that part of the wider catchment identified by the economists.
  12. [120]
    It is well established that the weight to be given to need is not fixed. The weight to be given to need will turn on, among other things, the nature of the development proposed. I did not understand there to be any dispute that a need, if demonstrated, given the nature of the use proposed would, absent good reason, attract significant weight.
  13. [121]
    In this case there is good reason to moderate the weight to be attributed to the demonstrated need.  There was no contest that ample provision had been made in the urban footprint for Childcare centres to serve the legitimate land use needs of the community. In this regard, provision has been made for Childcare centres in seven of the fifteen zones in the planning scheme.  Reference to the planning scheme reveals they are encouraged in different zones, with cascading levels of encouragement or limitation. Provision has also been made in planning controls applying to the nearby Priority Development Areas.
  14. [122]
    The appellants accept that provision has been made in planning controls for facilities of the kind proposed but, with reference to the evidence, were critical that the provision will not deliver equitable and convenient access. It was contended that equitable access to Childcare centres in a convenient location is an important matter in the public interest.
  15. [123]
    I do not accept this submission, insofar as it is critical of the provision made for Childcare facilities.
  16. [124]
    In my view, the Site sits within a rural residential community.  Residents of that community should expect to travel further than residents in an urban area to access services and facilities. In the case of Childcare centres, it was agreed by the economists that this is a distance of five kilometres or more for residents in a rural residential context. The catchment map prepared by the economists, in conjunction with a zoning map marked up with existing Childcare facilities, does not establish that the southern part of the southern sector is not, or cannot be, conveniently served by Childcare centres located in the urban footprint. Nor does the mapping suggest there is a genuine prospect that residents of the southern part of the southern sector of the catchment area will suffer by reason of inequitable access to Childcare facilities.
  17. [125]
    There is an additional reason that diminishes the weight to be given to need in the exercise of the discretion here.
  18. [126]
    The economic evidence assumes the demand for Childcare centres in the southern part of the southern sector will be consumed entirely by the proposed facility.  This assumption, in my view, is overly ambitious and has the effect of overstating demand for the proposed facility. 
  19. [127]
    The assumed demand needs to be moderated to reflect Mr Norling’s evidence. He pointed out that the catchment is, in effect, a dormitory suburb. There is significant leakage on a daily basis out of the catchment for residents to access employment opportunities, schools and retail services. This leakage would include leakage for Childcare centres. The extent of leakage is such that it is unlikely demand from the residents of the southern part of the southern sector would only be met in the catchment.
  20. [128]
    The exercise of the discretion will proceed on the footing it has been demonstrated there is a need for the proposed facility.  It will also proceed on the footing that the facility, if approved and constructed, would be conveniently located to serve the southern part of the southern sector.   Weight will be given to these matters in the exercise of the discretion. They favour approval.

Exercise of the discretion

  1. [129]
    The appellants’ case for approval is founded on essentially four propositions, namely:
    1. the proposed development complies, or can be conditioned to comply, with version 8 of the planning scheme;
    2. the proposed development will have no adverse character impacts;
    3. the proposed development is ideally located to meet an identified need for an important piece of community infrastructure, namely a Childcare centre; and
    4. an approval is supported by the Childcare centre code, which took effect in February 2023.
  2. [130]
    For reasons given above, I do not accept the appellants have established (a), (b) and (d) above.  In relation to the issue of need, I am satisfied there is a need for a Childcare centre and the Site is conveniently located to meet that need.
  3. [131]
    This case is about whether it is an appropriate planning outcome to meet the need for long day care Childcare centre facilities on the Site with the proposed facility, given it:
    1. would not be co-located with, or be in close proximity to, complimentary facilities, such as Centre activities or an Educational establishment;
    2. would have unacceptable impacts on amenity and character; and
    3. cannot be conditioned to comply with the planning scheme.
  4. [132]
    On balance, I am not persuaded the identified need (and all it encompasses in terms of convenience and equitable access to an essential piece of community infrastructure) is sufficient to provide a sound town planning basis to depart from the planning scheme.  This, in my view, is because: (1) the need, even taken at its highest on the appellants’ case, would not render the impacts on amenity and character acceptable; and (2) there is no sound town planning reason to not give the planning scheme its full force and effect – an approval would not withstand scrutiny against the planning scheme.

Disposition of the appeal

  1. [133]
    In the circumstances, I am not satisfied the appellants have discharged the onus.
  2. [134]
    The appeal against Council’s refusal of the material change of use component of the development application will be dismissed and this part of its decision confirmed.
  3. [135]
    Before making final orders, I will hear from the parties, given there is no challenge to that part of Council’s decision to approve the reconfiguration of a lot.  
  4. [136]
    The appeal will be adjourned to 31 January 2024 for review.

Footnotes

[1]s 45, Planning and Environment Court Act 2016.

[2]Who was authorised to give a statement on behalf of Childcare Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as AppleBerries Early Education Service.

[3]YQ Property, per Henry J at [59].

[4]Abeleda, per Mullins JA (as her Honour then was) at [53] and [58].

[5]Abeleda, per Mullins JA at [42] and [54].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Heap & Ors v Logan City Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Heap v Logan City Council

  • MNC:

    [2023] QPEC 52

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Williamson KC

  • Date:

    22 Dec 2023

Appeal Status

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

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.