Lipoma Pty Ltd & Anor v Redland City Council & Anor

Lipoma Pty Ltd and another party, collectively referred to as the applicants, brought an appeal against Redland City Council and another party, collectively referred to as the respondents. The applicants contested the respondents' approval of a development permit application for a mixed-use development, which included a shopping centre, and sought to challenge the decision in the Queensland Planning and Environment Court. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the legal issues surrounding the approval process, including the applicability of the 2018 Redland City Plan, and whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the applicants' appeal.

The key legal issues in this appeal revolved around the interpretation of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) and the extent to which the 2018 Redland City Plan should be considered in the assessment of the development permit application. The applicants argued that the primary judge erred in giving no weight to the 2018 Scheme in the assessment of the subject application. They also questioned whether the 2006 Scheme and the 2018 Scheme were an expression of the "public interest" and if there were sufficient grounds to depart from the planning instrument. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge correctly applied the law and if there were any jurisdictional errors in the decision-making process.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge correctly assessed the planning intent in the 2006 Scheme and identified areas where the Council's approvals had departed from that intent. The Court held that the primary judge was right to dismiss the appeals and approve the application for development, given the demonstrated strong need for the proposed development and the absence of adverse impacts on other large existing or planned centres. The Court also determined that the primary judge did not err in giving no weight to the 2018 Scheme in the assessment of the subject application, as the current planning instrument was the 2006 Scheme. The Court concluded that the primary judge's decision was in the public interest and did not constitute a jurisdictional error.

In light of the Court of Appeal's findings, the orders made were as follows: 1) Grant leave to appeal; 2) Dismiss the appeal; 3) The applicants pay the first respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal; and 4) Grant leave to the second respondent to make submissions as to costs, with specific directions for the filing and serving of written submissions and related affidavit material.