Greenhill Developments Partnership v Isaac Regional Council - [2010] QPEC 93

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Greenhill Developments Partnership v Isaac Regional Council & Ors [2010] QPEC 93

PARTIES:

GREENHILL DEVELOPMENTS PARTNERSHIP
(Appellants)

AND

ISAAC REGIONAL COUNCIL
(Respondent)

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS
(First Co-Respondent By Election)

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
(Second Co-Respondent By Election)

FILE NO/S:

57/2009

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Hearing of an appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 and 19 August 2010

JUDGE:

R Jones DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING LAW – Proposed Residential Subdivision at Coastal Village South of Mackay – refusal by council – conflicts with town plan – need – inconsistent land use – out of sequence development

Integrated Planning Act 1997

Cases considered or referred to:

Aria Property Group Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council [2008] QCA 169

Arpedco Pty Ltd v Beaudesert Shire Council (1980) Qd R 88

Brown v Brisbane City Council [2005] QPEC 26, (2005) QPELR

Grosser & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2001] QCA 423

Isgro v Gold City Council [2003] QPEC 002 (2003) QPELR 414 at 418

Maher v Hervey Bay City Council (2008) QPEC 123

Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1979) 145 CLR 485

Tadpoles Early Learning centre v Noosa Shire Council [2008] QPEC 9, (2008) QPELR 487.

Watts & Hughes Properties Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1998) QPELR 273

Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2004] QPEC 14; (2004) QPELR 337

COUNSEL:

Mr J. Haydon of Counsel for the appellant

Mr S. Ure of Counsel for the respondent

No appearance for co-respondents

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan Amiet Lawyers for the appellant

King & Co Solicitors for the respondent

The co-respondents were not represented

This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent to refuse an amended development application lodged by the appellant. The first and second co‑respondents by election have been excused from this part of the appeal. As the relevant application was made during the currency of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) and the appeal was commenced during the currency of that Act, pursuant to the transitional provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), the appeal is to proceed as though the SPA had not commenced. Pursuant to s 4.1.50(1) of IPA, the appellant carries the onus of establishing that the appeal should be upheld.

Background

The subject land, described as Lot 101 on Survey Plan 126375, occupies an area of about 65 hectares and is approximately a one and a quarter hour drive south of Mackay. It abuts on its southern boundary a coastal village located within a part of the respondent’s local government area known as Greenhill. At all relevant times the land was subject to the town-planning scheme for the Broadsound Shire Council (the Scheme), notwithstanding that that council has since been amalgamated into and forms part of the Isaac Regional…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Greenhill Developments Partnership v Isaac Regional Council 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: [2010] QPEC 93
Decision Date: 21 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Greenhill Developments Partnership appealed against the refusal by the Isaac Regional Council to approve a proposed residential subdivision at Coastal Village, south of Mackay. The council's refusal was based on the development conflicting with the town plan, a perceived lack of need for additional residential land, inconsistency with land use policies, and being out of sequence with the development of the surrounding area. The case came before the Queensland Planning and Environment Court, which was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was legally sound.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's refusal was justified in terms of the town planning scheme and whether the decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning principles and policies. This involved examining the compatibility of the proposed subdivision with the existing town plan, assessing the need for additional residential land, and determining if the development was consistent with the surrounding land uses. The court also had to consider whether the development was in sequence with the planned growth of the area.

In its decision, the court found that the council's refusal was supported by the evidence and aligned with the principles of the planning scheme. The court held that the proposed residential subdivision conflicted with the town plan, which designated the area for different uses. Additionally, the court determined that there was no demonstrated need for additional residential land in the area, and the development was inconsistent with the surrounding land uses. The court further found that the proposed development did not follow the planned sequence of development for the area, which prioritised other types of infrastructure and land uses. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the council's decision.

The orders of the court were that the appeal by Greenhill Developments Partnership against the Isaac Regional Council's refusal to approve the proposed residential subdivision at Coastal Village be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	Greenhill Developments Partnership v Isaac Regional Council & Ors [2010] QPEC 93
PARTIES:	GREENHILL DEVELOPMENTS PARTNERSHIP (Appellants) AND ISAAC REGIONAL COUNCIL (Respondent) AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (First Co-Respondent By Election) AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (Second Co-Respondent By Election)
FILE NO/S:	57/2009
DIVISION:	Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:	Hearing of an appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 September 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 and 19 August 2010
JUDGE:	R Jones DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PLANNING LAW – Proposed Residential Subdivision at Coastal Village South of Mackay – refusal by council – conflicts with town plan – need – inconsistent land use – out of sequence development Integrated Planning Act 1997 Cases considered or referred to: Aria Property Group Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council [2008] QCA 169 Arpedco Pty Ltd v Beaudesert Shire Council (1980) Qd R 88 Brown v Brisbane City Council [2005] QPEC 26, (2005) QPELR Grosser & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2001] QCA 423 Isgro v Gold City Council [2003] QPEC 002 (2003) QPELR 414 at 418 Maher v Hervey Bay City Council (2008) QPEC 123 Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1979) 145 CLR 485 Tadpoles Early Learning centre v Noosa Shire Council [2008] QPEC 9, (2008) QPELR 487. Watts & Hughes Properties Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1998) QPELR 273 Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2004] QPEC 14; (2004) QPELR 337
COUNSEL:	Mr J. Haydon of Counsel for the appellant Mr S. Ure of Counsel for the respondent No appearance for co-respondents
SOLICITORS:	Macrossan Amiet Lawyers for the appellant King & Co Solicitors for the respondent The co-respondents were not represented