PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Fabcot Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council & Ors [2020] QPEC 17 |
PARTIES: | FABCOT PTY LTD ACN 002 960 983 (Appellant) v CAIRNS REGIONAL COUNCIL AND DEXUS FUNDS MANAGEMENT ACN 060 920 783 AND CAIRNS COMBINED BEACHES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC AND INDIGENOUS BUSINESS ASUTRALIA AS TRUSTEE FOR THE IREIT SUB-TRUST AND TRINITY PARK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 123 732 525 ATF AND L’ARMONIA PTY LTD ACN 140 784 756 ATF |
FILE NO/S: | 201 of 2018, 221 of 2018, 223 of 2018 |
DIVISION: | Planning and Environment |
PROCEEDING: | Appeals |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Planning and Environment Court, Cairns |
DELIVERED ON: | 30 April 2020 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 16 – 20 March 2020, 23 March 2020 and 30 – 31 March 2020 and written submissions received on 1 April and 2 April 2020 |
JUDGE: | Everson DCJ |
ORDER: | 1. Appeal 201 of 2018 will be allowed subject to the imposition of appropriate lawful conditions; 2. Appeal 221 of 2018 is dismissed; and 3. Appeal 223 of 2018 is dismissed |
CATCHWORDS: | PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEALS – appeals against a preliminary approval for a Shopping Centre and Health Care Services and a development permit for a Child Care Centre, Service Station and Food and Drink Outlet and reconfiguring a lot and operational work in the Low-medium density residential zone ASSESSMENT – COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANNING SCHEME – whether the proposed development complies with the planning scheme – whether there is a need for the proposed development – whether the proposed development would compromise the existing hierarchy of centres – whether there are relevant matters which justify approval |
LEGISLATION: | Planning Act 2016 |
CASES: | Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council & Ors (2019) QPELR 793 Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 132 HA Bachrach Pty Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council (1992) 80 LGERA 230 Hervey Bay Projectsv Hervey Bay City Council [1993] QPLR 104 Isgro v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2003] QPELR 414 Luke & Ors v Maroochy Shire Council & Anor [2003] QPELR 447 Murphy v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor [2019] QPEC 46 Parmac Investments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2008] QPELR 480 Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QCA 41 Ugarin Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2004] QPELR 392 Williams McEwans Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [1981] QPELR 33 |
COUNSEL: | BD Job QC and MJ Batty for the Appellant EJ Morzone for the Fourth Co-Respondent by Election |
SOLICITORS: | Keir Steele Lawyers for the Appellant Emanate Legal for the Fourth Co-Respondent by Election |
Introduction
On 10…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fabcot Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council & Ors and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QPEC 17
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether the proposed developments complied with the planning scheme, whether there was a need for the proposed developments, whether the developments would compromise the existing hierarchy of centres, and whether there were relevant matters which justified approval. The court also needed to consider whether the refusals were reasonable and lawful.
The court found that the proposed developments did not comply with the planning scheme and would compromise the existing hierarchy of centres. The court found that there was no need for the proposed developments and that there were no relevant matters which justified approval. The court found that the refusals were reasonable and lawful. The court dismissed the appeals, except for the appeal in relation to the shopping centre and health care services, which it allowed subject to the imposition of appropriate lawful conditions.
The court ordered that the appeal in relation to the shopping centre and health care services be allowed subject to the imposition of appropriate lawful conditions. The court dismissed the other two appeals.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal 201 of 2018 will be allowed subject to the imposition of appropriate lawful conditions;
2. Appeal 221 of 2018 is dismissed; and
3. Appeal 223 of 2018 is dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.