In the media
The squeeze on Sydney industrial land is a boon for
Melbourne and Brisbane
Industrial property occupiers forced out of the
constrained Sydney market are flocking to Melbourne for space, and
Brisbane is tipped to be next in line (21 November 2019).
More...
Congestion busting for environmental assessments
Communities, environmental groups and businesses will have
greater transparency over the progress of major environmental
projects as the Morrison government focusses on deregulation
reform. The biodiversity database will provide better access to
information such as wildlife surveys, allow faster and more
comprehensive data for project assessments. (21 November 2019).
More...
Queensland
Plans Lodged for $200m Twin Tower Brisbane
Apartments
Maple Development Group, wholly-owned by China-based
developer Peng Bo, has lodged plans for a $200 million mixed-use
project in Brisbane's Quay Street precinct (29 November 2019).
More...
Industry welcomes Brisbane City Council Livable Housing
incentives
The Property Council has welcomed a new incentive package
from Brisbane City Council Budget aimed at encouraging the delivery
of 'livable housing'. Brisbane City Council has announced
the introduction of a 33% infrastructure charges rebate for
developers who build properties to a 'universal housing'
gold or platinum standard.* (28 November 2019).
More...
Arden Group Lodges Plans for East Brisbane Tower
Hong Kong-backed Arden Group, known for its residential
developments in Brisbane and Sydney, has submitted a proposal for a
10-storey apartment building in Brisbane's fringe (27 November
2019).
More...
Council Bans Townhouses and Units in Brisbane's
Suburbs
Townhouses and apartment blocks are no longer welcome in
Brisbane's character suburbs after the Brisbane City Council
voted to protect single house blocks under a two-year protection
order (21 November 2019).
More...
Ruling requires work to stabilise Broadway Hotel
The Palaszczuk Government has called on the owner of the
Broadway Hotel to carry out essential work to ensure the historic
building is protected (20 November 2019).
More...
Council approves major changes to Brisbane's
planning laws
The council voted in multiple large-scale amendments to
the city's 2014 planning legislation (19 November 2019).
More...
In practice and courts
Queensland
Brisbane City Council
Livable (or Universal) Housing Design is a set of key
construction features which aim to make homes easier and safer to
use for all occupants including: people with disability, ageing
Australians, people with temporary injuries, and families with
young children. A livable home is designed to be easy to enter,
easy to move around in, and be capable of cost-effective adaptation
(28 November 2019).
Bills and Papers – 02 December 2019
Annual Report on the administration of the Environmental Protection
Act | 2019 | Qld
This report is for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019.
Property Council lodges submission on Gold Coast City
Plan
The Property Council has provided a response to the
amendments proposed to the Gold Coast City Plan as part of the
'Our City Our Plan' package. The Property Council's
submission provides advice on the key areas. A copy of the
submission can be accessed here Gold
Coast Planning Amendments (18 November 2019).
Prosecution Bulletins
A selection of the department's enforcement actions
are summarised in prosecution bulletins outlining the facts and
outcomes of finalised prosecutions.
December 2019
Prosecution bulletin no 12/2019
November 2019
Prosecution bulletin no 11/2019
Cases
Queensland
Mirvac
Queensland Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council & Anor
[2019] QPEC 62
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPLICATION –
whether the respondent had power to approve an application pursuant
to the Springfield Structure Plan – whether the approval was
lawful. Planning Act 2016 Qld; Planning and Environment Court Act
2016 Qld; Statutory Instruments Act 1992 Qld
Favero
v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2019]
QPEC 61
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – COURTS AND TRIBUNALS WITH
ENVIRONMENT JURISDICTION – QUEENSLAND – PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT AND ITS PREDECESSORS – COSTS –
FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS – where the appellant
appealed an enforcement notice issued by the respondent –
where the respondent withdrew the enforcement notice and the court
allowed the appeal on that basis – where parties generally
bear their own costs – whether a costs order should be made
under the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 s 60, that is;
whether the proceeding was started or conducted primarily for an
improper purpose; whether it was frivolous or vexatious; whether
the respondent introduced or sought to introduce new material;
whether the respondent defaulted in the relevant procedural
requirements; and whether the respondent properly discharged its
responsibilities in the proceedings. Planning and Environment Court
Act 2016 Qld s 10(2), s 45(3), s 59, s 60; Planning and Environment
Court Rules 2016 Qld; Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 Qld
Abeleda
& Anor v Brisbane City Council & Anor
[2019] QPEC 58
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where
the co-respondent submitted a development application for a
multi-storey car park – where the respondent Council approved
that development application – where the appellant has
appealed against that approval – where the appellant contends
the proposed development is non-compliant with the planning scheme
– whether proposed development is non-compliant with planning
scheme – whether development complies with relevant
assessment benchmarks – whether the respondent Council has
correctly interpreted the planning scheme in approving the
development application – whether in the exercise of
discretion the co-respondent's proposed development ought be
approved
FLOODING AND WATER QUALITY – where the subject site is
affected by local flooding events – whether development would
cause unacceptable water quality and flooding impacts –
whether development adequately addresses associated risks of
flooding – where risk of flash flooding with little or no
warning – whether risk of flooding warrants refusal
TRAFFIC – whether development has unacceptable impacts on the
local road network – whether development would result in
unacceptable traffic impacts on the local road network so as to
warrant refusal
DESIGN AND AMENITY – whether height of development is
non-compliant with the planning scheme – whether development
is appropriately designed – whether development would have an
unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the locality –
whether there is community need and economic need for the
development to allow for the non-compliance
NEED – where the subject land is located proximate to the
Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital – where development
likely to be used by people attending the hospital – whether
there is a community need and economic need for an additional
multi-storey carpark in the locality
LAND USE – where the development is non-industrial use in the
Low Impact Industry Zone – whether proposed land use is
non-compliant with the planning scheme – whether there is a
departure from intention of the planning scheme so as to warrant
refusal
ONUS OF PROOF – where co-respondent developer still bore onus
of proof despite being respondent to appeal – Section 45(2)
Planning and Environment Court Act 2016. Planning Act 2016 Qld;
Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 Qld; Sustainable Planning
Act 2009 Qld
Vella's Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional
Council & Anor [2019] QPEC 60
The appeal is allowed.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where the appellant
applied to the respondent council for a development permit for a
material change of use – where the approval was recommended
subject to appropriate conditions – where the material change
of use was for the construction of a temporary quarry – where
the respondent council refused that development application –
where the appellant appeals that decision – where the
co-respondent by election is an adjoining land owner to the subject
site – where the respondent council changed its position on
the application by the commencement of the hearing – where
the issues whether the application should be approved subject to
appropriate conditions
NEED – where the appellant intends to extract 200,000 tonnes
of general fill in a one year period – where uncertainty
exists about the need for general fill in the locality –
whether projects in the locality requiring general fill will
proceed – whether there is a demonstrated need for general
fill in the locality – whether other existing quarries are
capable of satisfying need for general fill in the locality
CONDITIONS – whether the development should be approved
subject to appropriate conditions –whether three
environmental corridors need be implemented – whether a farm
dam need be constructed – whether the discharge point from
diversion drains under the current proposal ought to be changed.
Planning Act 2016 (Qld); Planning and Environment Court Act 2016
(Qld); Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld)
Serratore & Ors v Noosa Shire Council
[2019] QPEC 57
The application for an inspection is dismissed.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – PROCEDURE –
appeal against enforcement notices given by the respondent –
where the respondent made an application for nunc pro tunc orders
under rr 250 and 660 of the UCPR to sanction an allegedly
unauthorised site inspection – where the respondent wishes to
use evidence gathered to discharge its onus in the appeal –
privilege against self-incrimination – penalty privilege
– where possible consequences in the event of future
proceedings for offences – where the nature of the proceeding
and the consequences of a favourable exercise of discretion
relevant – where the respondent failed to lay a sufficient
evidentiary foundation for its application. Local Government Act
2009 (Qld), ss 129, 130 and 146; Planning Act 2016 (Qld), ss 163,
168, 174, 229 and sch 1; Planning and Environment Court Act 2016
(Qld), ss 43, 45 and 47; Planning and Environment Court Rules 2018
(Qld), r 4; Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 250 and
660
Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd
[2019] QLC 45
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY
COURTS – MOTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER
PRE-TRIAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where both parties
were automatically referred to the Court after lapsing of period in
relevant mining legislation - where a compensation determination
was required for the grant of a mining lease – where the
landholder sought a stay of the mining lease compensation
proceedings pending the judicial review of the mining lease
recommendation – whether the balance of convenience favoured
the granting of a stay where the judicial review application was
framed so that the mining lease recommendation would either confirm
or reject the recommendation but would not otherwise alter the
conditions attached to the recommendation
This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.
