Hayday Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

In Hayday Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council, the dispute revolved around the interpretation and application of planning laws in relation to a request for significant changes to an approved development. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, Hayday Pty Ltd, sought to add a sixth storey to a building and increase the gross floor area (GFA) and plot ratio by 20%. This request was deemed to constitute a minor change under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998, and thus did not require referral to additional concurrence agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995. The Brisbane City Council argued that the proposed changes were not minor and required referral to additional concurrence agencies.

The legal issues before the court included whether the changes requested by Hayday constituted a "minor change" as defined in the relevant statutes and whether these changes necessitated referral to an additional concurrence agency. Another significant issue was whether the proposed changes would likely cause objections from parties that had not objected to the original approval, and the relevance of the "assessment manager’s opinion" formed during the appeal process. The court had to determine whether the opinion formed during the appeal process could be considered in deciding the nature of the change requested.

The court found that the requested changes were not minor and required referral to additional concurrence agencies, which was not part of the original approval process. The court emphasised that the proposed changes had the potential to cause objections from parties who had not objected to the original approval. Additionally, the court held that the "assessment manager’s opinion" formed during the appeal process could not be considered in determining whether the request constituted a minor change. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was upheld. The court concluded that the changes requested by Hayday were not minor, and the Brisbane City Council's decision to refuse the request was justified.