Development Watch Inc v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Anor

[2022] QCA 6

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. › Queensland
4. › Assessment benchmarks
5. › Height of buildings and structures overlay code
6. › Overall outcomes
7. › Whether height of buildings consistent with reasonable expectations of local community
8. › Whether primary judge required to make finding as to community expectations regarding height
9. › Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014, s 8.2.8.2(2)(b)
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Planning schemes and instruments
3. › Queensland
4. › Assessment of development applications
5. › Community submissions
6. › Properly made submissions as common material
7. › Whether primary judge erred by failing to have proper regard to community submissions opposing development on height grounds
8. › Planning Act 2016 (Qld), s 45(5)
9. › Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld), reg 31(1)(g), Sch 24
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Planning schemes and instruments
3. › Queensland
4. › Assessment of development applications
5. › Amended planning scheme
6. › Discretion to give weight to amended instrument
7. › Whether primary judge erred by failing to consider amended planning scheme for contextual value
8. › Planning Act 2016 (Qld), s 45(7), s 45(8)
1. Appeal
2. › Interlocutory rulings
3. › Challenge on appeal from final order
4. › Whether interlocutory ruling affecting final order may be challenged on appeal from that order without separate leave

Quick Take

When a planning scheme requires the height of buildings to be consistent with the 'reasonable expectations of the local community', the decision-maker must first determine what those expectations are (including by reference to properly made community submissions), then assess their reasonableness in light of the planning provisions, and then determine consistency with the proposal. Community submissions forming part of the common material cannot be dismissed wholesale as unreasonable merely because they are 'out of step' with the planning scheme. An amended planning scheme must at least be considered for its contextual value under s 45(8) of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld), even where it has not been formally raised as a compliance issue.