Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Bundaberg Regional Council

Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd sought an order for the Bundaberg Regional Council to approve an application to extend the operation period of an existing quarry. The Council had previously approved the development but refused to approve the extension to the operation period. The applicant appealed to the Queensland Planning and Environment Court. The court was required to determine whether the proposed extension of the operation period was a permissible change under section 367 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The court considered whether the change to the development condition extending the period of operation of the quarry resulted in a substantially different development, or required referral to additional concurrence agencies, or required an impact assessment where previously the activity did not, or caused the development to which the change relates to include any prohibited development, or whether the change to the development application was likely to cause a person to make a properly made submission objecting to the proposed change.

The court held that the application was not a permissible change under section 367 of the Act. The court found that the change to the development condition extending the period of operation of the quarry resulted in a substantially different development, and required referral to additional concurrence agencies. The court also found that the change required an impact assessment where previously the activity did not, and caused the development to which the change relates to include any prohibited development. The court further found that the change to the development application was likely to cause a person to make a properly made submission objecting to the proposed change. The court therefore held that the application was not a permissible change under section 367 of the Act.

The proceeding was adjourned to allow the parties to consider these reasons. One or both of the parties were to notify the court's associate no later than 4.00pm 27 June 2014 as to whether or not the matter was required to be relisted. In the event that the parties had not given such notice by 4pm 27 June 2014, the application would be dismissed.