Fabcot Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council
Case
•
[2013] QPEC 38
•9 August 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fabcot Pty Ltd -v- Cairns Regional Council [2013] QPEC 38
[2013] QPEC 38
9 August 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Fabcot Pty Ltd, the applicant, appealed against the Cairns Regional Council's refusal of a development application seeking preliminary approval for a supermarket-based shopping centre on land within a Residential 2 Area. The applicant contended that the proposed development would not compromise the relevant Development Entitlement Objectives (DEO) and that it was in line with the planning scheme and Regional Plan. The Council opposed the application, arguing that the proposed development would conflict with the planning scheme and Regional Plan, and that the required facilities could be accommodated in the designated town centre to the east.
The court was required to determine whether the proposed development would conflict with the planning scheme and Regional Plan, whether the relevant DEOs would be compromised, and whether the facilities could be accommodated in the designated town centre to the east. The court also had to consider the likely impact of the development on the District Centre and a vacant Local Centre site to the west, as well as the social impact, amenity, and urban design considerations.
The court found that the proposed development would conflict with the planning scheme and Regional Plan, and that the relevant DEOs would be compromised. The court also found that the required facilities could be accommodated in the designated town centre to the east. The court considered the likely impact of the development on the District Centre and a vacant Local Centre site to the west, as well as the social impact, amenity, and urban design considerations. The court found that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the District Centre and the vacant Local Centre site to the west, and that the social impact, amenity, and urban design considerations did not outweigh the adverse impacts.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would not be in the public interest. The court adjourned the further hearing of the appeal to allow the parties an opportunity to formulate conditions of approval and any modification of the proposed variations to the planning scheme.
The court was required to determine whether the proposed development would conflict with the planning scheme and Regional Plan, whether the relevant DEOs would be compromised, and whether the facilities could be accommodated in the designated town centre to the east. The court also had to consider the likely impact of the development on the District Centre and a vacant Local Centre site to the west, as well as the social impact, amenity, and urban design considerations.
The court found that the proposed development would conflict with the planning scheme and Regional Plan, and that the relevant DEOs would be compromised. The court also found that the required facilities could be accommodated in the designated town centre to the east. The court considered the likely impact of the development on the District Centre and a vacant Local Centre site to the west, as well as the social impact, amenity, and urban design considerations. The court found that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the District Centre and the vacant Local Centre site to the west, and that the social impact, amenity, and urban design considerations did not outweigh the adverse impacts.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would not be in the public interest. The court adjourned the further hearing of the appeal to allow the parties an opportunity to formulate conditions of approval and any modification of the proposed variations to the planning scheme.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Planning & Development Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Development Application
-
Regional Plan
-
Social Impact
-
Amenity
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Fabcot Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council [2022] QPEC 11
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Fabcot Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council
[2022] QPEC 11
Lipoma Pty Ltd v Redland City Council and Nerinda Pty Ltd
[2019] QPEC 43
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Garyf Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council & Ors
[2008] QPEC 101
Australian Capital Holdings Pty Ltd v Mackay City Council
[2008] QCA 157
Woolworths Limited v Maryborough City Council
[2004] QPEC 86