Under s 326(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), it is not sufficient for an applicant merely to prove that there is a 'need' for a proposed development to justify approval despite conflict with a planning scheme. The decision-maker must consider whether the need for the development in the particular location is a matter of such public interest that it overrides the public interest embodied in the planning scheme. Reasons for judgment published by the Planning and Environment Court, without a formal order disposing of the proceeding, do not constitute a 'decision' for the purposes of the appeal time limit under s 64 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld). In a planning scheme with a hierarchy of outcomes, non-compliance with a Specific Outcome does not necessarily establish non-compliance with the scheme if the relevant Overall Outcome is achieved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.