Charles & Howard Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council

[2007] QCA 200

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Environment and Planning
2. › Planning schemes and instruments
3. › Construction of planning instruments
4. › Transitional planning scheme
5. › Weight to be given to new planning scheme on appeal
6. › Whether judge erred in partial reliance on 2006 planning scheme
7. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.1.52(2)(a)
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development control
3. › Conditions of approval
4. › Relevance and reasonableness of conditions
5. › Condition requiring fill at different location on same site
6. › Whether condition had effect of significantly altering proposed development
7. › Whether condition amounted to refusal of application
8. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 3.5.30
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Planning and Environment Court
3. › Appeal from conditional approval
4. › Comparative analysis of competing locations on same site
5. › Whether 'best sites' test erroneously applied
6. › Distinction between alternative sites on different land and alternative locations on same site
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development control
3. › Filling of land near coastline
4. › Consideration of climate change impacts on sea levels
5. › Whether judge arrogated Council planning responsibility
6. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 3.5.30

Quick Take

A condition on a development approval requiring fill to be placed at a different location on the same site does not amount to a refusal or a materially different approval, and the Planning and Environment Court may conduct a comparative analysis of competing locations on the same site without offending the 'best sites' principle. Climate change impacts on sea levels may be considered in assessing the reasonableness of conditions where the planning scheme itself requires consideration of sea level changes resulting from climatic conditions.