Maroochydore Sands Pty Ltd v Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning

The case of Maroochydore Sands Pty Ltd v Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning involved the applicant seeking to develop a commercial sand extraction plant on a site at Forest Glen. The applicant had previously submitted a report supporting the inclusion of part of the site as a Key Resource Area (KRA) in the State Planning Policy (SPP). However, the Deputy Premier had decided not to proceed with the inclusion due to ongoing legal proceedings related to the site. The applicant then applied for a statutory order of review, which the respondent Minister sought to dismiss on the grounds that the decision was not one to which the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) applied.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the Minister was required to make a decision "under an enactment" as per the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) and whether the decision sought under s 10(5) of the Planning Act constituted an amendment to a State Planning instrument. Additionally, the court had to determine if the failure to make the decision affected legal rights and interests. The respondent argued that the SPP Interactive Mapping System (IMS) and the SPP guidance material were not part of a State Planning instrument, and therefore, the Minister was not obligated to make a decision concerning them. Furthermore, the respondent contended that the Minister had not undertaken the necessary steps to propose an amendment, nor had the failure to make the decision impacted any legal rights and interests.

The court examined whether the decision sought was indeed an amendment to a State Planning instrument. It was determined that the relevant documents were supporting materials for the SPP policies rather than being part of the policies themselves. The SPP policies referred to the IMS as supporting mapping for the policies and assessment benchmarks. Consequently, the inclusion of KRA 162 in the IMS did not constitute a change to the policies. Given these findings, the court held that the decision was not one that fell under the purview of the Judicial Review Act 1991, and thus, the application for a statutory order of review was dismissed. The court also ordered that the parties be heard regarding costs.