Lewis v Townsville City Council & Ors

[2012] QCA 99

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Environment and Planning
2. › Environmental planning
3. › Planning schemes and instruments
4. › Queensland
5. › Development applications
6. › Material change of use
7. › Rural planning area
8. › Whether proposed use compromised achievement of Desired Environmental Outcomes
9. › Whether proposed use conflicted with planning scheme
10. › Whether sufficient grounds to justify approval despite conflict
11. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 3.5.14(2)
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Environmental planning
3. › Planning schemes and instruments
4. › Queensland
5. › Construction of planning scheme provisions
6. › Distinction between 'compromise' of DEOs and 'conflict' with planning scheme
7. › Meaning of 'compromise' in s 3.5.14(2)(a)
8. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 3.5.14(2)(a), (b)
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Planning and environment appeals
4. › Error or mistake of law
5. › Whether factual findings dressed as errors of law warrant leave
6. › Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), s 498
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Planning appeals
4. › Whether court required to disclose view at odds with agreed position between parties before making adverse finding

Quick Take

Under s 3.5.14(2) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), 'compromise' of DEOs means to endanger their integrity and is more serious than 'conflict' with the planning scheme, because compromise requires refusal whereas conflict permits approval if sufficient grounds exist. A finding that a proposed development is 'incompatible' with DEOs amounts to a finding of compromise. A planning court is not bound by an agreed position between some parties on an issue (such as noise amenability to conditions) where another party has raised it as a live dispute.