Fabcot Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council & Ors

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

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
(Respondent)

AND

DEXUS FUNDS MANAGEMENT ACN 060 920 783
(First Co-Respondent by Election)

AND

CAIRNS COMBINED BEACHES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC
(Second Co-Respondent by Election)

AND

INDIGENOUS BUSINESS ASUTRALIA AS TRUSTEE FOR THE IREIT SUB-TRUST
(Third Co-Respondent by Election)

AND

TRINITY PARK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 123 732 525 ATF AND L’ARMONIA PTY LTD ACN 140 784 756 ATF
(Fourth Co-Respondent by Election)

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

Planning and Environment Court 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
RS Litster QC and K Buckley for the Respondent
DR Gore QC and JG Lyons for the First Co-Respondent by Election

EJ Morzone for the Fourth Co-Respondent by Election

SOLICITORS:

Keir Steele Lawyers for the Appellant
McCullough Robertson for the Respondent
Hopgood Ganim for the First Co-Respondent by Election

Emanate Legal for the Fourth Co-Respondent by Election

Introduction

  1. On 10…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] QPEC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fabcot Pty Ltd sought to appeal against decisions of the Cairns Regional Council, which had refused preliminary approval for a shopping centre and health care services, a development permit for a child care centre, service station and food and drink outlet, and the reconfiguring of a lot and operational work within a low-medium density residential zone. The applicants argued that the refusals were unlawful and sought to appeal against those decisions. The appeals were heard in the Queensland Planning and Environment Court.

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.