McKay v Brisbane City Council & Anor; Panozzo v Brisbane City Council & Anor; Jensen v Brisbane City Council & Anor

In the matter of McKay v Brisbane City Council & Anor; Panozzo v Brisbane City Council & Anor; Jensen v Brisbane City Council & Anor, the appellants sought to appeal against the Brisbane City Council's approval of a development application for a six-storey multiple dwelling in a Medium density residential zone. The appellants contested the Council's decision on the grounds of inappropriate height, bulk, and scale, as well as concerns regarding the impact on streetscape, compatibility with the area's character, and potential amenity impacts. They also argued that the development did not provide adequate deep planting and landscaping, and questioned the necessity of the proposed development.

The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed development met the relevant assessment benchmarks and whether the development application should be approved in the exercise of the planning discretion. The applicable statutory framework, outlined in the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) and the Planning Act 2016 (Qld), guided the court's assessment. The court considered the City Plan version 16, relevant development approvals, lawful use of premises, and any other pertinent matters. The court also acknowledged the established approach to assessing impact assessable development applications as outlined in Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council & Ors and Murphy v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor; Australian National Homes Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor.

The court concluded that the appellants' arguments were not substantiated by the evidence, and that the proposed development met the relevant assessment benchmarks. The court found that the development would contribute to a cohesive streetscape, be compatible with the existing and intended character of the area, and not cause unacceptable amenity impact. Furthermore, the court found that the proposed development provided for adequate deep planting and landscaping. The court also determined that there was a need for the proposed development. Given the appellants' failure to establish a valid basis for appeal, the court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the Council's decision to approve the development application.

The court ordered that the appeals numbered 1747 of 2020, 1749 of 2020 and 1750 of 2020 were dismissed. Furthermore, the decision of Brisbane City Council notified by the decision notice addressed to Azure Development Group Pty Ltd dated 22 May 2020 was confirmed.