Morris Corporation Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Regional Council - [2011] QPEC 129

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morris Corporation Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Regional Council [2011] QPEC 129

PARTIES:

MORRIS CORPORATION PTY LTD
ACN 070 136 220
(Appellant)

AND

WHITSUNDAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D308 of 2009

DIVISION:

Planning & Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning & Environment Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

30 September, 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATES:

08, 09, 10, 15, 16, 17 November 2010 and 08 December 2010

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1 Appeal allowed.

2 The Development Application should be approved subject to lawful conditions.

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION:

PLANNING SCHEME:

CASES:

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT – PLANNING SCHEME - STAGED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL ZONE – proposed development of 768 person purpose-built single men quarters accommodation facilities – staged development intended to respond to future demand projections – whether orderly development – whether need established – efficacy of survey of township community attitudes - whether visual amenity impacts – whether adverse social and economic impacts.

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT – PLANNING SCHEME - RURAL ZONE – urban residential use proposed for Rural Area – residential accommodation for mining industry workforce – location outside urban township footprint – whether out-of-sequence development – whether DEOs compromised – whether Overall Outcomes for Rural Zone compromised – whether conflict with planning scheme Strategic Framework, Rural Zone Code and Short term Accommodation Code.

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT - SCALE , FORM AND DENSITY – proposed location in Rural Zone – whether alternative sites including ‘infill’ between two currently separated urban township areas (Collinsville and Scottsville) preferable – whether negative impacts on township in economic, social and aesthetic contexts.

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT – CONFLICT WITH PLANNING SCHEME – whether conflict and if so whether sufficient grounds to justify approval despite conflict.

Integrated Planning Act 1997 ss 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.11, 3.5.14, 3.5.30, 4.1.28, 4.1.52; Sustainable Planning Act 2009 ss 350 and 819

Bowen Shire Council Planning Scheme 1996

NevTan Investments Pty Ltd v Belyando Shire Council [2008] QPELR 326; Family Assets Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (2008) 161 LGERA 43; Westfield Management Limited v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2004] QPELR 337;Weightman v Gold Coast City Council [2003] Qd R 441; [2003 Qd R 44; Woolworths Ltd v Maryborough City Council (No 2) (2006) 1 Qd R 273; Main Beach Progress Association Inc v Gold Coast City Council [2008] 164 LGERA 233; Grosser v Council of the City of Gold Coast (2001) 117 LGERA 153; Webster v Caboolture City Council [2009] QPELR 455; Luke v Maroochy Shire Council [20023] QPELR 447; Aldi Stores v Redland City Council [2009] QCA 346; Bunnings v Redland City Council [2003] QPELR 624; Australian Capital Holdings Pty Ltd v Mackay City Council [2008] QCA 157; Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council [2006] QCA 271; Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council (1997) 2 Qd R 31; Cut Price Stores Retailers v Caboolture Shire Council [1984] QPELR 126; Arapower Pty Ltd v Gladstone City Council [2003] QPELR 506; Arksmead v Council of the City of Gold Coast [1999] QPELR 322; Arksmead v Gold Coast City Council [2001] 1 Qd R 347; Warradale Holdings Pty Ltd v Caloundra City Council [1998] QPELR 503; Prime Group Properties Ltd v Caloundra City Council & Ors (1995) QPELR 147; Broad v Brisbane City Council & Anor (1986) 2 Qd R 317; Vacuum Oil Company Pty Ltd v Ashfield Municipal Council [1956] 2 LGERA 8; Bassingthwaighte v Roma Town Council [2010] QPEC 91; PMM Brisbane Pty Ltd v Nebo Shire Council [2008] QPELR 43; Koerner v Maroochy Shire Council [2004] QPELR 211; Handley v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2005] QPELR 80; Kotku Education and Welfare Society Incv Brisbane City Council & Ors [2005] QPELR 276; Blue Sky Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2010] QPEC 16; Mackay Conservation Group Inc v Mackay City Council& East Point Mackay Pty Ltd [2005] QPEC 094; Palyarus v Gold Coast City Council [2004] QPELR 162; Sheezel & Anor v Noosa Shire Council [1980] QPLR 130; Canine Caterers Pty Ltd v Torres Shire Council (1975) 33 LGRA 182; Bad Girls Maroochy Pty Ltd v CE Department of Tourism, Recreation & Fair trading [2004] QCA 45; Baptist Union of Queensland v BCC & Anor [2003] QPELR 61; Central Equity Limited v Gold Coast City Council [2007] QPELR 356.

COUNSEL:

C Hughes SC and E Morzone for the appellant
RS Litster SC and ED Job for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Emanate Legal for the appellant
McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the respondent

The appeal arises from the refusal by the respondent (“the Council”) of a proposed development (“the proposal”) at Collinsville, a small township located about 72 kilometres west of Bowen with a long association with the mining industry.

The appellant is a support service provider to the mining resource and construction industry sectors, including accommodation and catering services. It has provided such services in Collinsville for many years.

There are within 100 km of Collinsville five operating coal mines, a significant coal exploration project, four other major identified coal deposits and other major projects under consideration or assessment.

The application

On 14 March 2008 the appellant made an application for a development permit for a material change of use and reconfiguration or a lot on land at Cnr Powerhouse Road and Bowen Developmental Road, Collinsville formally described at Lot 2 on MPH 20122 and Lot 3 on SP 1070034, County of Drake, Parish of Springlands, a total area of 238.45 ha (“the land”), owned by Loricliff Pty Ltd, a company that is part of the Morris Group of companies.

The proposal

The proposal is for an accommodation village and motel on about 22.9 ha of Lot 3 of the land. It is situated in the Rural Zone in the Bowen Shire Council Planning Scheme 1996 (“the Planning Scheme”). The proposed use is impact assessable.

The land is about 1 km north of Collinsville. It is vacant and sparsely vegetated. The current use is cattle grazing. It has been described as a “generally rural area characterised by scattered trees and grazing land”. The prominent topographical feature is a steep ridgeline running north-south across the western portion of Lot 3. The land to the east of the ridge is a gentle slope and that is the proposed location of the development. The access to the site is off Powerhouse Road. The intersection with the Bowen Developmental Road is proposed to be upgraded. The Collinsville Power Station is about 2.4 kms to the west, on the western side of the ridge line. The nearest urban residential dwelling is about 1.6 kilometres to the south. The closest dwelling is about 350 m away on the eastern side of the Bowen Developmental Road. There is an aged care facility nearby to the south also on the eastern side of the Bowen Developmental Rod.

The proposal is for staged accommodation buildings for a single person’s quarters (“SPQ”) accommodation facility (a 768 person accommodation village) and motel (50 rooms), incorporating offices, a check-in area, dining room, kitchen, bar, tavern, function/conference room, gymnasium and industrial laundry. It requires a boundary re-alignment, an environmentally relevant activity (ERA) 15-sewerage treatment) and cleaning of native vegetation.

The proposal has five stages: Stage 1 comprises 192 accommodation rooms with individual bathrooms designed in clusters around a central open space area, 288 car parking spaces and supporting facilities (excluding motel, tavern and function/conference facilities); Stage 2 comprises 192 accommodation rooms designed in clusters; Stage 3 comprises a 50 bed motel, a tavern (with bottle shop and public toilets) and function and conference facilities; Stage 4 comprises 384 accommodation rooms designed in clusters and 288 car parking spaces; and Stage 5 involves the development of the balance area of the land for a Park Residential Subdivision (to be the subject of a future application). The latter stage is not relevant to the proposal the subject of this judgment.

The stages are proposed to be developed in accordance with demand. Town water is to be connected. A private waste treatment facility is to be located on site.

Background

The history of the Development Application as submitted to Council is:

· 16.02.09 - Infrastructure matters at Regional Council level and a recommendation by staff.

· 18.02.09 - Informal meeting report by Regional Council Planner. Approval supported despite conflict with the Planning Scheme, on the basis that there was no adverse affect on community health and safety or amenity, no impact on orderly growth, there would be an enhancement of sports facilities and the development would add to the range of accommodation.

· 25.02.09 - Minutes of the Regional Council. The development application was approved despite conflict, for the reasons referred to in the informal meeting report to which I have referred above.

· 08.07.09 - Minutes of the Regional Council. The development application was approved for Reconfiguration of Lot and Material Change of Use but a Preliminary Approval only for the balance of the development, for the reasons previously expressed.

· 08.07.09 - Minutes of the Regional Council. The application was withdrawn.

· 11.11.09 - Minutes of the Regional Council. The respondent's planning department recommended to a meeting of Council to approve stage 1 and to approve a preliminary approval only for the balance of the development. Development application refused on the ground that it compromised the DEOs, compromised the Overall Outcomes for the Rural Zone, had social and economic impacts and was out of sequence development.

There were three properly made submissions. One submission has since been withdrawn by the submitter. One submission is an objection to the proposed tavern by a prospective commercial competitor in the town; and the other submission, by an aged care facility in the subject locality, expressed concerns about traffic and amenity impacts.

None of the concurrence agencies oppose approval of the development and each recommend conditions.

Legislation

The appeal is to be assessed against the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and some provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The provisions relevant to the issues in the appeal are at Appendix ‘A’.

Reasons for refusal

The specific issues in the appeal are the Council’s Reasons for Refusal (18 March 2010) and the grounds of appeal set out at paragraphs 20 to 29 of the Notice of Appeal supplemented by the Council’s response to a request for particulars of the Reasons for Refusal:

“The reasons for refusal are:

(i) The proposed development is considered to compromise the achievement of Desired Environmental Outcomes 2.2(1) (e), (i), (j), (k), (m) and (o) of the Bowen Shire Council Planning Scheme 2006;

(ii) The proposed development compromises the achievement of Overall Outcomes for the Rural Zone 3.3(1)(b)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Bowen Shire Council Planning Scheme 2006;

(iii) The applicant has failed to adequately address the potential social and economic impacts of a proposal of this scale and nature on the Collinsville township; and

(iv) The proposed development is considered to be out of sequence development and given that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to justify the proposed development and the current and future demand for accommodation within the Collinsville area, Council is unable to justify the deviation from the Bowen Shire Planning Scheme 2006.”

Grounds of appeal

“20.The respondent’s decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable and wrong.

21.The proposed development does not compromise the achievement of any DEOs including DEOs: s 2.2(1)(e), (i), (j), (k), (n) and (o) of the respondent’s planning scheme.
22.Such DEOs are shire-wide (mis-spelling corrected by me) Regional Council area DEOs and will not be compromised by the proposed development.

23.The proposed development does not compromise the achievement of the Overall Outcomes for the Rural Zone of the respondent’s planning scheme, including Overall Outcomes 3.3(1)(b)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the respondent’s planning scheme.

24.Further or in the alternative, if (which is denied) there is any conflict with the Overall Outcomes for the Rural Zone, there are (as was recognised in the respondent’s Council’s Agenda for Ordinary Meetings held on 25 February 2009, 8 July and 11 November 2009) sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite any conflict including that the proposed development:
(a)Will provide support to the expansion of the existing mining industry and tourism industry;

(b) Will support a range of uses within Collinsville area;
(c)Will provide for current and future demand for accommodation in the Collinsville area;

(d) Will provide a diverse range of accommodation;
(e)Will provide support to the expansion of the existing mining industry and tourism industry;

(f)Will result in additional employment opportunities in the mining sector;

(g)Will compliment and be aligned with the mining industry which is of major economic and social benefit to the town of Collinsville.

25. Further, the proposed development:
(a)Will not cause any adverse social or economic impact on the township of Collinsville; and

(b)Does not adversely affect the community’s health and safety or the amenity enjoyed by people in different areas of the Shire.

26. The proposed development will not adversely impact on:
(a)The sequence of development in the Shire (Whitsunday Regional Council area);

(b)The efficient use and promotion of orderly expansion and growth within the Collinsville area; and

(c) The main functions of Bowen.

27.The proposed development will provide for a current and future need or demand for accommodation of the nature proposed in the Collinsville area.

28. This Appeal should be allowed.

29. The development application should be approved subject to lawful conditions.”

Synopsis of the Issues in the Appeal

The principal issue is whether workers at the various mine sites or in associated service or other industries should be accommodated in a purpose-built SPQ facility or accommodated in similar established facilities in diver’s locations in the town.

The specific planning issues can be broken down specifically as follows:

“1. Town planning -
(a) Conflict with the planning scheme, particularly –
(i)conflict with the Strategic Framework in s 1.14;

(ii)compromise of DEOs s 2.2 (1) (e), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n) and (o);

(iii)conflict with the purpose of the Rural Zone and Overall Outcomes of the Rural Zone Code Overall Outcomes s 3.3 (1) (b) (i) to (vi); and Specific Outcomes 01, 02, 03, 06, 015 and 016;

(iv)conflict with the Residential Zone and Residential Zone Code and Overall Outcomes (i), (iii) and (iv) of s 3.7 (1) (b); and Specific Outcomes 06, 08, 15 and 16;

(v)conflict with the Short Term Accommodation Code – Overall Outcomes (iii) and Specific Outcomes 01 and 03;

(vi)conflict with planning scheme – sufficient grounds to justify approval;

(b)Orderly Development (including infrastructure) considerations including suitability of site and future expansion of Collinsville;

(c)Scale, Form and Density of the development and Urban Design Considerations;

2. Need and alternative sites;

3. Traffic and access issues;

4. Social and economic impacts;

5. Visual amenity impacts.”

PLANNING SCHEME

The relevant direct extracts and paraphrased provisions from the Bowen Shire Planning Scheme are at Appendix ‘B’.

VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PROPOSED SITE

The photo below is a panoramic view of the proposed site, from the northern end of the Bowen Developmental Road boundary. The view shows the vegetated hill to the west of the site that separates the powerhouse locality from the proposed site.

Aerial Map of Locality

By way of visual representation, an aerial photograph in an exhibit is reproduced that shows the relevant area of Collinsville – including part of Scottville, the mine, the powerhouse and the road network – and the Subject land outline with the site highlighted in yellow (or clear in a black and white copy).

Published Studies and Reports

The former Bowen Shire area has been exhaustively surveyed and assessed in recent years with regard to expansion of the mining industry, port facilities and associated service and industry, together with both permanent and transient accommodation needs and forecasts and analysis of the likely impacts upon communities, including Collinsville. There is a wealth of information relevant to a number of the critical issues in the appeal, open to interpretation and application generally to those issues.

(a)BAPACI Study:Community Infrastructure Report 2009

SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd prepared a comprehensive report for the Queensland Government and the Council in 2009 to determine the accommodation and community infrastructure needs and appropriate responses within the study area, namely the former Bowen Shire Council area, which is focused on the State Development Area (the “SDA”) associated with the Abbott Point port expansion.

(b)Bowen Abbott Point Accommodation and Community Infrastructure Study

The final report in this study was published in April 2010. The primary focus of the report was to consider the management of impacts of a number of expansion projects linked to the Abbott Point coal terminal, on existing industries and communities.

The Executive Summary identified population growth impacts: that is, the addition to existing pressures placed on the region for accommodation and infrastructure provision; infrastructure requirements to support their growth; social and community infrastructure; utility infrastructure planning and provision; and the protection of GQAL. The report considered the accommodation of seasonal workers and the need to provide a diverse range of housing options for both resident and non-resident population. The level of demand for accommodation for residents (including long term operational workers) and construction workers was likely to be influenced by the number and scale of major projects that proceeded. Estimates only were analysed because of the relative level of uncertainty concerning some projects. The report considered future requirements for accommodation and potential of existing land to fill gaps. It concluded that there was likely to be adequate land to meet residential, seasonal worker and tourist accommodation needs. However further land, outside of current residential type zoning, and the urban localities, will be required to house the temporary construction workers likely to locate within the region. It considered that temporary workers' accommodation should be located in close proximity to the Bowen locality to ensure good outcomes for economic prosperity, amenity considerations and community cohesion. Specific reference was made to targeted infrastructure to meet the needs of construction workers, staying in accommodation villages - including in Collinsville. The report referred to a number of issues relevant to this appeal. The purpose of the report was to provide information through its analysis and recommendations, but nothing more than that. Nevertheless, it refers to matters which have a synergy with some of the issues in the appeal:

"Consideration of accommodation impacts on Bowen, Merinda and Collinsville due to major projects in the SDA must take into account the long term and expanding role of the SDA and the Port of Abbott Point. Focussing on individual projects can set an unwanted precedent for less than workable outcomes over the longer term. Taking a strategic and long term view will ensure that the cumulative effects are taken into account and that the mitigation of impacts is distributed amongst the beneficiaries fairly. Our recommendations aim to ensure that the quality of life for residents, workers and visitors to the study area is maintained as a minimum, and enhanced where possible.

……

Some broad recommendations regarding the general location (included within the SDA or not) of operational and construction worker accommodation is provided below:

1. The SDA is an important industrial site and provides crucial land for the mining industry and large scale industrial projects. There are a limited number of places where development and infrastructure of this nature can be located, therefore it is important to reserve the SDA for such purposes. Even in the early stages of development of the SDA, allowance for workers' accommodation and the SDA could set unwanted precedents. Residential use in the SDA will limit the potential of the SDA to develop over the long term and will severely limit the range of permitted industrial use both on the residential site itself, but also on the surrounding lands because of residential sensitivities.

……

4. Currently, only a handful of major projects are planned for the SDA, however it is likely that over the next 10-15 years as the port capacity expands, the construction of other major projects in the SDA is likely to occur. This could mean that construction workers may be required on a longer term basis, establishing a need for semi-permanent accommodation that provides the flexibility to accommodate families or couples and not just single persons. Should this occur, further accommodation within or adjacent to the township would be desirable."

The report considered a response to the needs of non-resident populations, in the following way:

· "The planning, provision and production of community infrastructure that responds directly to the needs of non-resident workforces is influenced by the approach taken to accommodating them. This could include one or more of the following approaches:

o Creation of construction and/or operational accommodation villages (single person's quarters) that are self contained and separate from the existing housing stock, will accommodate between 250 and 2,000 persons (mainly single males) and have basic infrastructure provided on site;

o Utilisation of existing housing stock and commercial accommodation in an area - including purchase of existing caravan parks and re-retro fitting them to accommodate and service work force/s;

o A mixed approach, including #1 and #2 (above), as well as new residential developments by key employers or contract companies (servicing key employers);

· Good quality standards are required for any discrete (self contained) accommodation villages catering for non-resident workforces in terms of the location and types of accommodation and infrastructure provided.

· There are specific effects of Fly-in/Fly-out (FIFO) and Drive- in/Drive-out (DIDO) operations on individuals, their families, and on the host communities they work in which must inform the planning and provision of universal and targeted community infrastructure.

· Targeted approaches to achieve physical, social and economic integration of workforces into the host community will be required.

· The well being of non-resident workers is prioritised when making decisions about the best way to accommodate and service them.

· Actions taken to accommodate and service non-resident populations will not compromise or diminish the quality of life of existing residents, businesses and/or communities of interest."

In the summary of accommodation planning recommendations for the Bowen-Abbott Point SDA, reference was made, inter alia, to the following:

"8. The worker accommodation should have regard to, and be compatible with adjacent land uses. Thus, it is likely that the worker accommodation will need to be proximate to, but not directly within existing townships. The exception to this would be where the amenity of the workers' accommodation within the existing townships was on a par with the surrounding residential environment, and where the scale of the accommodation was small or interspersed within the existing urban fabric.

…….

10. The location of workers' accommodation in Collinsville for the SDA is not suitable due to the large distance (85 kms) between the SDA and Collinsville. However, worker accommodation in Collinsville should be considered for any major project in close proximity to Collinsville."

(c)Mining Developments and Social Impacts on Communities: Bowen Basin case studies 2009

The report assessed impacts on six communities in the Bowen Basin between 2003 and 2008. It referred to amongst other things the increased reliance on a non-resident work force and the increased mobility of local residents, housing shortages and price spikes and the increased use of non-resident work forces. The number of coal mines close to a town and the extent of non-resident workforce were assessed to be the key factors determining the extent of social impacts. The report looked at mining communities other than that in Collinsville but the analysis and the conclusions appear to be fairly generic across mining towns and mining communities.

(d)Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation Report 2007

The Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation prepared a report called "A Sustainable Futures Framework for Queensland Mining Towns" and analysed growth management pressures for a number of mining communities. For Collinsville it concluded that the town could experience impacts, on land and housing supply, and infrastructure due to the workforce accommodation requirements of the Sonoma mining development.

Among the impacts of mining industry expansion considered in the report was housing choice, housing affordability and short term accommodation.

So far as housing choice was concerned, there was a need to address the appropriateness of SPQ's and camp accommodation and the potential loss of caravan park accommodation. In respect of housing affordability, the report referred to household prices across the Bowen basin perhaps being more affordable than the Queensland average. The impact on local non-mine employees not being able to compete with mine wages and afford to live in mining towns was considered.

With respect to short-term accommodation, and major projects, the report concluded that temporary accommodation is the best solution if it fits in with existing infrastructure and social networks, resulting in far less social unrest. It noted that there was not always the opportunity to utilise existing infrastructure. Accommodation for single visitors and company officers visiting mine sites overnight was needed to avoid them having to FIFO on the same day.

(e)Other reports

I perused the Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009 prepared by Elsevier and the Social Impact Assessment carried out by the Central Queensland University, both of which referred to mining communities west of Mackay; and the a report ‘Resourcing the Future: National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce Report, July 2010.

All of those reports contributed to relevant sources of information that have, and are continuing to be acquired about the expansion of the mining industry and its consequential environmental and community impacts.

All of these reports have informed the experts, particularly Mr Powell and Mr Brannock, to a greater or lesser extent, in their preparation of evidence and in the opinions expressed by them. I have given appropriate weight to the varied views expressed by all of the experts who drew on the reports for relevant information in support of their own reports and the joint reports of experts.

The accommodationQantac

The Qantac Pty Ltd Development Application (“Qantac”) for a development permit for material change of use (exhibit 50) was made on 10 November 2006. The company provided a mine workers' accommodation camp of 208 SPQ's in stage 1 and 192 at stage 2, a total of 400. In stage 1 there were ten blocks of 16 single rooms and four blocks of 12 single rooms. There was a communal mess, recreation hall, and utility facilities. 89 car parks, (80 for mine workers and 9 for staff) were provided in stage 1 and 31 proposed for stage 2.

The accommodation is in the Industrial Zone (not a Residential Zone, I note) on the Collinsville - Mt Coolon Road and was primarily utilised for employees working at the Sonoma Coal Mine about six kilometres south of Collinsville. It utilised coach connection for DIDO and buses between the accommodation and the mine site.

EVIDENCE

Town Planning:

Joint Report

The Town Planners Mr Schomburgk for the appellant and Mr Brannock for the respondent identified significant matters of disagreement in the Joint Report dated respectively 12 and 13 August 2010.

Many of the points of disagreement were about areas within the province of other expert witnesses. To that extent, whilst the town planners were informed by the other reports in considering the issues that reflected their town planning area of expertise, I am assisted by the other experts where there is conflict of opinion and I infer that the town planners defer to the opinions expressed in the other expert reports.

1(a)(i) Strategic Framework

Section 1.14.1(a) of the Planning Scheme identifies Rural Land as an "Agricultural land and land not required to satisfy expected urban growth." There is agreement that the site is not identified as "Good Quality Agricultural Land" ("GQAL").

However, the disagreement is two fold: that is, the suitability of the land for cattle grazing, the land being part of the existing rural landscape, as against the loss of the land not leading to any negative impacts on the rural sector; and the lack of suitable and available alternative sites within the urban area of the township, as against the availability of land, albeit also rural, adjacent to Scottsville and contiguous with existing rural area.

1.(a)(ii) DEOs

The material DEOs have been addressed in the context of disagreement, as follows:

(d) Proximity to the mining lease area;

(e) The inadequacy of benefits to local residents;

(i) The efficient timely and orderly expansion of the urban area not being achieved as against the cost of infrastructure being provided at no cost to the Council;

(j) Diversity of housing choice not being facilitated as against the unique design of the single person quarters;

(k) motor vehicle use for resident movement;

(l) unsuitability and incompatibility of the proposal with the Rural area and its isolation as a "satellite development", as against integration with the rural landscape with no negative impacts;

(m) non-integration of a large scale single person quarters complex with the town and consequential health and safety issues;

(n) the proposal not reflecting the reasonable expectations of a number of members of the community and a lack of harmony with the natural environment, as against adequacy of conditions in respect of any potential visual amenity impacts.

(o) The two remaining submitter’s focus on specific issues about the licensed tavern and the aged care facility;

(p) whether social planning principles are negatively impacted

1.(a)(iii) Rural Zone Overall Outcomes and Rural Zone Code

There is disagreement about conflict with overall outcomes (2) to (6);

(ii) Whether conversion of the land to the proposed use will be a negative impact on what is otherwise land suitable for cattle grazing.

(iii) Whether a non-rural use on rural land is justified;

(iv) Whether the development constitutes orderly development and good planning practice;

(v) Whether the scale of the proposal is inconsistent with a residential use;

(vi) Whether the proposal is likely to impact on the development of extractive resources in the adjoining resource area.

There is disagreement about conflict with Specific Outcomes 01 and 02 (inconsistent use for the Rural Zone), SO4 (sub division design - 22.9ha as against minimum lot size of 100ha); SO5 (density - the scale of the proposal); SO6 (character and amenity - separation from other residential use by between 300 and 500 metres); SO8 (design attributes and negative impacts in the context of visual and lifestyle amenity); and SO15 (vehicle parking and movement).

1.(a)(iv) Residential Zone and Residential Zone Code

The disagreements really are matters that other experts have addressed in evidence, namely social issues, amenity issues and traffic issues. Those issues are advanced by Mr Brannock as being relevant to town planning, it seems, in an holistic sense. Mr Schomburgk's view is that those matters ultimately are amenable to the imposition of conditions.

1.(a)(v) Short Term Accommodation Code

There is disagreement about compliance with the Code. Mr Brannock refers to the accommodation of a significant density of single person quarters "in a very sterile and monotonous layout that will provide a poor amenity for its occupants." Mr Schomburgk considers the scale and design of the proposal is contempory and that integration with existing areas is not always practical and may be counterproductive given the needs of the workforce whose work regime involves shift work.

1.(a)(vi) Grounds to Justify Approval

I will deal with the divergent views expressed on this matter, in my discussion of the issue of conflict, in the judgment.

1(b) Orderly Development and Future Expansion

The disagreement is really a matter of degree: that is, lack of connection to the existing urban fabric of Collinsville, against a location that is described as being ‘proximate’.

Mr Brannock favours a location to the southwest between Collinsville and Scottsville. Mr Schomburgk believes the site is appropriate because of its relative proximity to the urban area and the specific nature of the accommodation proposed.

1(c) Scale Form and Density and Urban Design Considerations

The disagreement is poor urban design without an eclectic mix of customary urban land uses, against a design that reflects the specific nature of the accommodation proposal.

Mr Schomburgk

Mr Schomburgk said that the fundamental town planning issue was whether a purpose built single person's quarters (“SPQs”) were appropriate as opposed to a non-resident workforce being housed within an existing urban township. His view was that the "development is needed, is suitably located on the outskirts of Collinsville, and is convenient to the town area and the mines". He considered that the development would contribute to the local economy, would support the mining industry and would not impact on the availability of rural land.

He said that single person quarters were purpose built to reflect the needs of shift workers, servicing needs, supervision and controlled environment for persons not residing with their families. He considered that it was a "pipe dream" to expect families to relocate to Collinsville, given its proximity to the coast and the services and amenities available in locations there. He did not consider the site to be GQAL. He considered that the DEOs were set at a Shire-wide level. The development was consistent with the DEOs. The site was suitable, self-supporting, there were no negative visual impacts, there was no impact on community health and safety and it was not incompatible with development in the locality. He did not consider that the DEOs were compromised by the development.

With respect to community expectation, he referred to there being only three properly made submissions despite a level of objection voiced by some persons in the community.

With respect to the location being in the Rural Zone, he considered that the development was an essential element of a rural activity, namely mining. He did not consider that there was any infringement on landscape or rural amenity, that infrastructure could be provided to the site and that the land was of limited agricultural value. He considered that the specified lot size in SO 4 was irrelevant: it was a factor of the necessary Reconfiguration of Lot. He did not consider that the development would impact on the amenity of adjoining premises. Visual impacts in respect of infrastructure were conditionable.

The Residential Zone: the development was consistent with overall outcomes and presented as a "rural transition to the town". The Short Term Accommodation Code: he considered the design, location and standard of the accommodation to be suitable and that the development complied with the Code. Orderly Development: he did not consider it to be an out-of-character development. The motel and the tavern proposed in later stages of the development: the motel had a specific use for visiting persons not directly "working" in the mine and for visiting families. The tavern was primarily internally focussed.

He did not consider the scale, form and density to be inconsistent. The development was to be staged. A latent demand for the accommodation had been forecast. The development was on the "outskirts" of the town. He referred to the fact that the Qantac site was in the industry zone.

Mr Schomburgk referred to the view available from the Hillside Haven aged care facility. It appears that the facility, located inbound towards the town, does not directly overlook the proposed development site.

He considered that the location of the proposed development avoided adverse affects on amenity. He did not consider that the expansion of the town would be prejudiced by the use of the proposed location. He considered that the higher order DEOs were not offended. In town planning terms he considered that DEOs 2.2 (1) (d), (e), (f), (i), (j) and (n) were relevant together with the Short Term Accommodation Code. He referred specifically to his construction of the planning scheme (of course, it is a matter for the Court, not for the town planner, to construe the provisions of a planning scheme) that it specifically contemplated a facility such as that proposed, in the Rural Zone. He referred to the Short Term Accommodation Code at s4.13 (2) (a) and (b) and the fact that the location was within four kilometres of the town, within one kilometre of a State controlled road and the area was not less than four hectares.

He agreed that there was need to accommodate transient workers and that the only potential "conflict" with the planning scheme was "inconsistency", which was the higher of the tests. He considered that by reference to the evidence of Burnie, Duane and Powell, there were substantial spin-off benefits to the town. He said that by reference to the relevant Planning Scheme Map there was no Residential Precincts R2, TR or a CB precinct in Collinsville. He referred to Mr Norling's evidence about alternative sites and said those areas were in the Rural Zone, or were grazing leasehold land. All were west of the town.

In cross-examination, he expressed some doubt about the proposed tavern and said the motel needed its viability to be assessed. The size of the tavern was about equivalent to a mess hall. A tavern was within the definition of "hotel" and was able to be "conditioned" upon any approval.

He said by reference to s 5.2.2.4(b) the location was unique and discreet; so far as its scale was concerned there was no guidance in the planning scheme; and in s 5.3.2.6 of the joint report reference had been made to "conflict" but there was nevertheless a clearly demonstrated "need." The motel and tavern were "ancillary" to the main thrust of the proposed development.

Finally, he said that the population within a SPQ is a form of urban growth. In so far as Qantac Stage 2 was concerned, there were ‘concerns’ about its location in the Industrial Zone.

Mr Brannock

Mr Brannock considered that the development compromised the DEOs: that it would not contribute to or achieve environmentally sustainable development, it was not integrated into the urban fabric of the town and that SPQ accommodation would lead to an increase in a drive-in drive-out workforce. He considered that it was a speculative development with significant planning consequences.

He referred to the strategic framework of the planning scheme and highlighted the following factors: the development was in the Rural Zone, there were alternative sites available in the locality and the tavern and motel were inappropriate components of such a development. With respect to ecological sustainability, he was of the view that the "triple bottom line" approach (economic, social and environment) were not considered in the development.

He considered that the development created a Residential Zone in a Rural Zone. The development was an intrusion into the rural area.

Mr Brannock considered accommodation of mine workers was an essential requirement of the mining industry. He acknowledged that SPQs and a drive-in drive-out workforce have been found to be a practical and cost effective way of meeting fluctuating needs of the industry. However, he considered that the financial benefits of the provision of such accommodation should be shared with the town community. It seems implicit in his opinion that this development would not provide financial benefits to the town.

With respect to the Short Term Accommodation Code, the development was too large. The design was not current best practice and the development was akin to a "satellite" development. With respect to Orderly Development, he did not consider that it was a logical extension of the town. There was no social integration, there were limited living options and it amounted to a fragmentation of development. The scale, form and density were contrary to good urban design principles and not a contributor to "liveable neighbourhoods".

Mr Brannock said that he had investigated many different SPQ's throughout Australia. He agreed that accommodation (the Short Term Accommodation Code being in his view a relevant sub-set of DEO's) were contemplated in the Rural Zone but qualified that by saying that in the code the relevant accommodation form is ‘bed and breakfast’.

He said his investigations disclosed that most miners did not want SPQ's. He agreed that the appellant was a "contributor" and would be likely to employ more persons and spend more money if the development proceeded; that employers prefer SPQ's; that Collinsville had close ties to the mining industry; and that the existing SPQ's were full and there was a need for more in the town.

In his view, SPQ's could co-exist with normal housing. He considered that the DIDO was part of the character of Collinsville. He made reference to the Abbott Point report (supra). He agreed that there had been a "boom" in the transient (non-residential) workforce. He considered that an SPQ did not need to have as part of its facilities a tavern or a motel.

Mr Brannock maintained that the proposed development would compromise the DEO's and disagreed that there were sufficient grounds to justify the approval despite the conflict with other parts of the planning scheme. He wrote:

"(i) There is currently not a need for the additional non-resident accommodation as the Economic Expert for the respondent has identified that there is spare capacity within existing or approved developments.

(ii) The demand for additional non-resident accommodation is dependent upon a number of planned mining projects proceeding, which is currently uncertain. However, based on the findings of the Economic Expert for the Respondent, it appears that the scale of the development would far exceed any likely need for additional accommodation over the next five to ten years.

(iii) At such time as there is a need for additional new housing for mine workers, it is desirable, in relation to good planning practice and sound urban design principles, that the new development takes place either within the urban areas of Collinsville or Scottville, or between them in order to promote a more integrated urban form that is consistent with the concept of sustainable development.

(iv) While the need for some proportion of SPQ accommodation is recognised, it appears that SPQ's currently form the majority of existing or approved short-term accommodation. It is desirable that new housing be provided in a mix of housing forms, not solely or primarily, in SPQ camp accommodation.

(iv) The proposal has failed to adequately investigate and address the potential social, economic and traffic impacts of the development. It has been undertaken as a speculative venture which is not associated with the development of any particular mine project, that would normally require the development to be subject to the EIA and SIA requirements of State legislation."

Social Impacts:

Joint Report

It was agreed that "social impacts" reflected the effect of changes on people in one or more of the following: way of life, culture, community, personal and property rights and perception such as safety and future aspirations.

However, there was broad disagreement about the following:

A Community Expectations

Mr Powell said that the low number of properly made submissions suggested ambivalence towards the proposal in the community: there were no resident submitters. He considered the proposal struck an appropriate balance in expectations of the community. Increased employment opportunities would create flow-on economic and social benefits. The town had a long and established relationship with the mining industry. Benefits naturally ebbed and flowed over time.

Mr Brannock maintained that a structured "attitudinal survey" of the community was required. He doubted the nature and level of benefit flowing to the community and was concerned that detrimental effects had not been excluded or diminished. He relied on the submissions - not property made - of people in the community to support his view.

B Demographic Change

Mr Powell anticipated that there would be population growth with impacts on gender mix and a high percentage of single person households. The existing population was relatively older. Incomes were lower. Demographic change had already commenced since 2001. He maintained that a demographic survey was required. He anticipated an "atypical demographic structure" - an itinerant workforce, increased male population and population turnover as well as growth.

C Housing Demand and Supply

Mr Powell referred to the appellant's "position" in the industry as an accommodation and services supplier. He believed there was a growing need for SPQ-style temporary accommodation in the mining industry. He considered that the proposal added another dimension to the "residential mix" in Collinsville and enhanced affordability of housing generally, although predictions about and projections into the future were difficult to proscribe.

Mr Brannock said the proposal was "speculative". He did not consider that its temporary nature added to housing diversity in the long term or permanent since. He considered that transient worker accommodation was currently over-supplied.

D Facilities & Services

Mr Powell considered the social and recreational facilities proposed would satisfy temporary residents, supplemented by other services provided by businesses in the town.

Mr Brannock did not regard the proposal to be "self-contained". He considered reliance on business in the town would "not promote equity and access to goods and services". The number of SPQ's was significant in comparison to the town population.

E Residential Amenity

Mr Powell considered the location of the development made adverse affects on the town community unlikely in any respect, including traffic. The SPQ design provided privacy and a higher level of residential amenity.

Mr Brannock considered the effects to be undesirable. He did not think that social impacts from such a large development had been properly addressed in the application. Conversely, he referred with approval to other approved workers camp approvals in the Collinsville area which were ‘similar in scale’ and integrated in the urban area.

F Health and Safety

Mr Powell did not consider that an increase in crime would occur. The work regime of the mine workers was not conducive to anti-social behaviour or lawlessness. Safety within the proposed development was not an issue.

Mr Brannock believed that personal safety and property security had not been adequately addressed. He referred to statistical information from other communities in the Bowen Basin.

G Social Integration

Mr Powell considered non-permanent populations tended not to integrate strongly with established populations. Such integration required time to develop. However, opportunities to achieve this goal existed.

Mr Brannock saw the development as being "disconnected from normal, urban and community services" with the effect that participation in and contribution to community identity would not develop.

In the course of the inspection with counsel I saw the current distribution of worker accommodation in housing in the town: (see exhibit 35).

Mr Brannock

Mr Brannock considered there was a need for balance between mining industry needs, community needs and social needs. The benefits needed to be widely distributed but the development would generate only limited benefits for the local community. There was a lack of connectivity to the urban area, the development was isolated, created fragmentation, was too large in scale and was likely to have very real and significant negative social impacts in his view.

He said that a social impact assessment (SIA) is the "analysis, monitoring and management of the social consequences of development". He said there was insufficient information about the benefits that the development would provide to the town. However, he agreed that there were no statutory requirements for social impact assessments. He also conceded that the results from any ‘attitudinal survey’ where there had been a campaign of "misinformation" that preceded it, were unlikely to be reliable.

He referred to the "community meetings" and the concerns expressed by members of the community. He had attended a number of community meetings and received the views of the community from interviews that he conducted with participants in the meetings.

An analysis of population trends showed that the transient (non-resident) workforce in Collinsville increased by 78% in 2001 to 2010 as against 8% for the permanent population. Predictions of future demand were difficult but it was likely that transients would form a very significant part of the total population. He said that social capital (that is, integration) and the physical infrastructure of the town would not grow commensurately.

He supported Mr Norling's views, expressed in terms of economic need, on housing demand and supply.

Mr Powell

Mr Powell described Collinsville in the following terms:

"Collinsville is a mining community established in 1917, with an historic association with coal mining in the region of almost 100 years. It's population has ebbed and flowed depending on the economics of coal mining in the district. Its permanent population since the early 1970s has fluctuated between 2,250 and 3,000 persons. In the last decade, it has experienced a growth in temporary residents - up 78% over the past ten years compared to permanent population growth of 8% over the same period.

Without the mining sector, Collinsville's economic foundations would be severely limited. Previous downturns have left their 'scars', most evident in the form of empty house lots and concrete house pads when houses were relocated in response to the changing fortunes of the town.

A number of major mining projects in the region are expected to drive future population growth - mainly from an influx of temporary workers for construction, mining and other civil construction projects. The full-time equivalent permanent population is expected to grow to 4,170 and 4,470 by 2016 and 2021 respectively. In addition, this population will be supplemented by short-term visitors and workers (less than two week stay at a time)."

Mr Powell in considering the social impacts of single person's quarters said the development proposal:

1. Is fundamentally consistent with the broad patterns of people's way of life in Collinsville;

2. Is fundamentally consistent with the culture of the town;

3. Delivers benefits to the town community: direct and indirect employment and payroll, reduced housing price pressure basic recreational facilities, aspirational and general economic contributions, increased individual and household incomes and a decrease in average age of the total population.

4. Would not have a disproportionate adverse impact with respect to the proportion of male to female populations, sole person households, the rights and property interests of the population generally and stability of the town in a public safety context.

5. Meets expectations of the community of a continuing role in and support from the mining industry.

6. Provides single person quarter accommodation that was not unexpected or broadly opposed (taking into account the small number of submissions and the resident and business proprietor opposition subsequently arising).

He said case studies in other mining communities in the Bowen basin since 2003 gave insight into the likely impacts and the anticipated benefits of the development proposal. In the conclusion to his report, he wrote the following about "temporary accommodation":

"Temporary accommodation in the form of workers' camps and single person quarters (SPQ's) is a recent response to the changes in the mining sector labour market. Many of the social impacts identified in recent case studies, which were also addressed in this report in previous JERs are closely related to the work practices that dominate the contemporary mining sector (FIFO/DIDO). They cannot be attributed to the accommodation response to these circumstances. Indeed, my opinion that an accommodation services provider cannot reasonably be expected to take responsibility for addressing the impacts associated with the work practices of an industry sector; they are neither responsible for many of these impacts nor do they have the ability to genuinely influence the change in these practices or to manage the impacts.

Further, the potential impacts arising from the growth of FIFO/DIDO would arise regardless of where and what types of accommodation temporary workers lived in. Whether temporary workers lived in existing motels or in shared accommodation in rented houses dispersed throughout a township, or in SPQ's, the reality of limited social integration would still be evident. Furthermore, should SPQ's not be available, such temporary workers - most of whom would be on substantially higher average salaries - would 'crowd out' lower income groups for existing accommodation options. As such, effectively compelling temporary, high income, mining workers to live in other housing in the town could actually result in socially adverse outcomes for a host of lesser paid segments of the community."

Mr Powell referred to the Queensland Government's "Sustainable Futures Framework for Mining Towns" (in Exhibit 7B) where it is stated that there was a need to consider "the most appropriate mix of housing types to better match the mining workforce mix comprising transient and potentially permanent residents. The aim will be to avoid the inadvertent creation of longer term social problems for the community when there is a downturn in the mining industry".

Similarly, Mr Powell in support of his conclusions, drew on the "Bowen and Abbott Point Accommodation and Community Infrastructure" studies, April 2010 (in Exhibit 7A) and 2009 (in Exhibit 7B) and the discussion about the marginalisation of other industries through a transient workforce taking over low cost temporary accommodation that might otherwise be utilised by tourists and other workforce personnel; the importance of providing good quality self contained accommodation for non-resident workforces such as FIFO or DIDO workers; and the discussion about the number of SPQ accommodation units that were foreseen as being required to meet mining expansion expectations in the future.

Mr Powell said in evidence that locating workers in the community invited adverse impacts because of the work hours and shift times and length of shifts. He considered that transient workers were a regular part of the Collinsville community. He used "transient" in the context of permanent employees of the appellant and of the mines who chose to FIFO or DIDO, and temporary short term workers. The transient workforce was an established feature of the mining industry and in his view was likely to remain so. With respect to social isolation from the rest of the community, he said transient workers tended to be isolated no matter where they were located. He said that integration had not always been successful in mining towns. He regarded the concept as being too simplistic. Transient workers were a lot less likely to integrate. The mining industry produced some skewing of impacts. There were men than women; a younger average age; increased average wealth; lone person households would increase. All of these things have impacts but they are not necessarily adverse or negative.

In making his assessments, he did not do any primary interviewing. He considered that he was reasonably au fait with attitudes from his experience in the mining industry, including in Collinsville. Attitudinal surveys of the nature of the statements by residents for partitions sought by those opposing the development, were very much dependent on the accuracy of the information those persons acted on.

It was put to him that the proposed development was not consistent with the culture of the town. He replied that in the context of the town being and continuing to be a mining town, it was consistent with the culture.

In so far as the tavern was concerned, he considered that it would be mainly resident focussed because it was located within the proposed complex, but nevertheless available for public use. The motel was principally focussed on visiting families.

Economic Need:

Joint Report

Mr Duane and Mr Norling were at odds about the need for the development. They differed about whether the development would proceed in the short to medium term, Mr Duane expressing a need for planning now for SPQ accommodation which was the type for which there would be a demand. He considered housing investment in the town to be uncertain. The development increased diversity of housing to meet projected demand.

Mr Norling agreed there would be a need to provide additional short term and long term accommodation in the town, if the numerous planned projects proceeded.

However, he considered that the development was out of sequence and would not contribute to the growth and orderly development of the town because of its location and scale and the existence of alternative sites. The Qantac camp approval provided capacity to meet need. There was minor economic benefit to the town because of the self contained nature of the development. In his view, the inclusion of a tavern was unnecessary.

Mr Duane

Mr Duane concluded that there was a need for the development by way of immediate public benefit for Collinsville. The development would serve to ensure housing affordability issues were controlled and would not impact adversely on the socio-disadvantaged components of the community.

He referred to some criteria that supported his conclusion, namely the expansion of the mining industry in several respects, housing affordability for mining towns, the need for facilities both currently and to cater for future demand, the preference for single person quarter type accommodation for the mining industry, employment opportunities, mobility of workers, a development that would allow for orderly traditional residential development to occur in the town and the stage development which took into account fluctuating requirements for accommodation from initial construction stage of a mine and beyond.

He said the "form" of accommodation is a major point of disagreement. Families often did not wish to relocate to towns in mining areas. He considered the rate of increase of the transient worker population against the permanent population of the town. He referred to vacant lots and houses being needed to cater for the latter. He made a comparison with other similar towns such as Middlemount and Dysart.

Mr Duane referred to the Federal Government Study titled "Resourcing the Future: Natural Resources Sector Employment Taskforce Report, July 2010". He drew on this report in considering the need for affordable housing and community infrastructure. He considered that the pool of workers for such mine projects and sites was "nation-wide".

He also referred to the "BAPACI Study (supra) and drew on this to support his view that there needed to be a diverse range of housing options, including worker accommodation. He referred to a statement in the executive summary:

"The worker accommodation should have regard to and be compatible to, adjacent land uses. Thus it is likely that the worker accommodation will need to be proximate to, but not directly within, existing town ships."

He considered that the development would reduce the demand for detached housing by taking workers out of the pool for permanent and rental accommodation in the town. The relatively small population of Collinsville made major change difficulty because of the limited economic base. He considered Collinsville to be a small satellite township to Bowen, which he nominated as the region's economic hub."

He accepted Mr Norling's estimates of population growth. His view was that there would not be enough accommodation on present supply "as at 2016". He said that higher demand for accommodation would arise very quickly once mines started. With respect to availability of accommodation, and by reference to the Tables in the reports, he considered that the accommodation status was ‘tight’ at present. In arriving at that view he has discounted Qantac Stage 2, vacant lots and houses.

The latter opinion, of course, contrasts with that of Mr Norling who speaks in terms of over supply of accommodation. He considered that there was a planning need which required investigation of facilities now.

Mr Duane said that Mr Brannock's assessment was built on an assumption that the contact stage 2 would proceed. He agreed that it had space for expansion but otherwise it seems he was doubtful that it would in fact proceed.

In so far as the tavern was concerned, he considered that it was internalised and would primarily service residents. He had not spoken to employers about the benefits or otherwise of the proposed tavern. There was no reason why a motel type accommodation could not be located in the town. He said stage 3 depended on mine expansion and with respect to stage 4, there was no present demand.

Mr Norling

Mr Norling referred to the uncertainty of the project proceeding in the short to medium term. He referred to the over supply of housing in the residential market and high vacancy rates at a low house and vacant prices in the town. He said that historically Collinsville had not had the increase of other mining towns.

He considered that there were alternative sites that contributed to orderly expansion, namely the area west of the town and the area between Collinsville and Scottville, amongst other areas.

Collinsville was the closest of the mining towns to the coast: hence the popularity of DIDO. He agreed that there was a requirement for both transient and permanent residents. The permanent residents would look for existing vacant houses and vacant lots and new residential lots. The transient workers would look to rent houses or apartments or live in caravan parks or single person quarters.

At present, there was no demand for the accommodation. He said there may be demand in the future if projects are committed to. However, there was no demand for 800 more rooms. He considered that 1,250 houses would be required in 2016 if all the projects proceeded. He said the planning scheme does not provide for growth. He considered that the present was the time generally to be undertaking planning for growth. So far as assumptions about need were concerned, he said the best evidence is that the transient population would peak in 2016 and drop off by 2021.

He considered that a "wet mess" for 198 workers in stage 1 was not inappropriate. However, there was nothing to suggest a need for a tavern although he agreed that conditions were available to control it. He agreed that there needed to be some type of facility that provided that service. He said there was no existing need for a motel but that when some or all projects were committed, a motel was an appropriate form of short term accommodation, but located in the town.

Traffic and Access:

Joint Report

The traffic engineers, Mr Flanagan and Mr Beard, provided three joint reports. The relevant issues can be summarised, based upon the initial identification of issues and the provision of further information by Mr Flanagan, as follows:

(i) Traffic and Parking Impacts

Mr Beard labelled the traffic assessment as speculative. Mr Flanagan's view was that future estimations are of their nature somewhat uncertain and cannot be assessed with the degree of certainty preferred by Mr Beard.

(ii) Car Parking

The car parking rate was based on advice provided by the respondent to the appellant. Mr Flanagan's proposal was that a higher rate of parking would be provided in the initial stage or stages and the rate thereafter determined upon operational experience.

Mr Flanagan considered the advised rate of 0.7 spaces per room was ample to cater for vehicle use that exceeded what he described as a conservative analysis of potential car parking demand.

(iii) Commercial Vehicle Movement

Separation of service vehicle and refuse collection vehicles from car parking areas was to be provided and would be subject to further design and to conditions upon any approval.

(iv) Public Transport

The pick up and set down area required further design consideration. Separation of vehicle movement was available. Conditions could be made on any approval.

(v) Site access

Mr Beard expressed concerns about site distances at the access intersection from the site to Powerhouse Road. Mr Flanagan anticipated further design amendments and the imposition of conditions on any approval.

(vi) Pedestrian, Cycling and Public Transport

Mr Beard considered that there needed to be a pedestrian, cycle and public transport connection between the site and the town. Mr Flanagan considered that the self contained or self-sufficient nature of the proposal did not indicate any need for such a connection.

This issue reflects the town planner's reference to a Residential Zone Code purpose, namely:

"Development is designed to achieve safe and efficient access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists."

However, the traffic experts finally agreed that a low volume of pedestrian or cycling movement was likely. A courtesy bus was an alternative means of accommodating required movements of persons. Mr Flanagan observed that a dedicated pedestrian/ cycle pathway could be provided in the existing road reservation if required. However, Mr Beard considered that this was a matter that strongly indicated the unsuitability of the site for the proposed development.

(vii) Future Mine/Work Sites

Future mine sites appear to be to the south of Collinsville. Mr Beard postulated an increase in traffic movement through the town, with consequent impacts on traffic safety and residential amenity. Mr Flanagan disagreed. He considered that travel movements were in any event staged or staggered over time due to shift work or rolling rosters. He considered peak traffic generation estimates to be relatively low (calculated on analysis to be an additional 22 vehicles per hour). By contrast, if workers were accommodated in the town area rather than on site, there would be greater impact through reduced potential for shared journeys of groups of people and the generation of increased traffic within the town and to the mine sites.

Mr Beard

Mr Beard considered that there were no traffic capacity considerations which could reasonably preclude the development. However, on planning grounds he considered the site was a poor site: it was remote from the urban area and there were no pedestrian or cycling facilities proposed (which would be necessary because of the road between the town and the site being a 100 km/hr highway); the site was on the opposite side of town from future mine developments; and whilst the intersection would be upgraded, the road was still a 100 km/hr main highway.

He did not support the development. He had considered an analysis of occupancy rate projections and vehicle movements but the proposal in his view lacked adequate data in respect to the latter. He said there were a lot of assumptions in vehicle movements but at a guess, there would be about 1,500 vehicle movements per day. He did not consider that people would walk or ride bicycles and that a path or bikeway was not warranted.

Mr Flannagan

Mr Flannagan assessed traffic movement, primarily using peak periods. His initial assessment, he considered to be conservative. Mr Flannagan said there would be no coincidence of site traffic generation and town traffic peaks. He considered that there was no traffic issue warranting refusal. If the accommodation was in town or closer to town then the impacts on amenity he considered would be greater. The development was not likely to have any impact on safety and efficiency of the existing road network in his view. Not all of the trips from the site to workplaces would necessarily go through the town.

He expressed the view that catered accommodation was preferred in the form of single rather than family accommodation. (An objection was taken to that opinion in the course of the hearing but in my view, it is an opinion that Mr Flannagan can give).

Mr Flannagan considered that the car parking provisions were sufficient, the intersection with the highway could be upgraded and that traffic movement was not likely to have any significant impact.

He did not observe anyone cycling in the town and thought that it was an improbable mode of transport. A cycle or walking path was not reasonable given the non-likelihood of pedestrian movement along the highway.

Amenity:

Joint Report

Dr Hassall and Mr Brannock had no points of disagreement.

They agreed on a number of specific issues: the coal mines and the power station were screened from the town and the site by an intervening ridge of hills to the west of the site. There was a gradual transition north to south between rural outskirts and the town; and the site itself had a lower visual impact than surrounding areas and the back drop of the ridge of hills.

The height of buildings was largely amenable to screening by landscape buffers. They made recommendations for landscaping that could be supplied in stage 1 of an approved development. Similarly, sewerage infrastructure was able to be screened.

The experts recommended landscaping conditions. They, of course, are not a matter for consideration in this appeal.

Dr Hassall referred to the Short Term Accommodation Code s4.13 in the planning scheme: at (1) purpose, (2) (a) site suitability and (b) building siting and design, and the specific outcomes and solutions there under.

He said that the proposal complied with visual impact requirements and referred to exhibit 38, the plans 1, 2 and 3 of 3. He said that the important amenity issue was the ‘visual’ amenity.

He said that the site was not isolated. It was on the edge of town and there was a degree of harmonisation with the urban area. He agreed that the layout of the accommodation units were in a grid pattern but this could be softened by landscaping. The proposal contained two open activity spaces and was in a location which was 'transitional" between rural and urban. The slope went away from the road and the site could be treated by multi-layered landscaping. He recommended planting in a 20m² area 10 to 15 trees plus shrubs and groundcovers and two to three rows of large trees and four to five rows of smaller trees. He thought that the landscaping could achieve an 80% screen within two years through which there might be glimpses of built form. The plants would be tube stock through to 1 metre high trees. Within the site shade planting was recommended. The species of trees would be similar to those already in the locality but would be denser in planting. He said the effect of the landscaping would not be unacceptable. Insofar as light emanating from the developed area was concerned it was largely a matter of perception. There would not necessarily be only a "loom" of light. He did not consider that the site itself was "prominent."

Mr Brannock referred to exhibit 3B tabs 31 and 32 in regard to amenity in the broad sense: that is the intrusive and satellite nature of the development, a lack of harmonisation with the rural environment and a physical and functional separation from the town.

Infrastructure:

Joint Report

Mr Flanagan and Mr Johnson had no points of disagreement.

Water reticulation was able to be extended to the site, subject to the appellant providing suitable infrastructure. The site was outside the head works service area but the appellant’s Development Application provided for on-site sewerage treatment and disposal.

Individual Reports

Given the level of agreement it is unnecessary to refer to the individual reports.

Community Expectation:

Statements of residents

A number of members of the community provided letters which opposed the development. I have extracted by way of summary the key reasons stated by each of them in those letters. The letters were received into evidence without cross-examination and hence they fall to be considered by me bearing in mind that the views expressed in them have not been subject to cross-examination.

Mr Jones (exhibit 19) said that the development "turns its back on the town" and that single person quarters should be in the town and disbursed within it.

Mrs Odger (exhibit 20) is the wife of a miner and expressed the view that the development was a "satellite city" and it did not integrate with the town.

Ms Jones (exhibit 21) is a real estate business proprietor and president of the Hillside Aged Care Facility, which is located near the development site and was a submitter. She said that the development would not contribute to the Collinsville community. She believed that permanent residency should be encouraged. She said that she had told Mr Norling that in July 2010 she had 50 houses available for rent out of 175 houses on her books. There were 47 houses available for rent as at October 2010.

Mr Brennan (exhibit 22) is a motel proprietor. He is opposed to the tavern component of the development. He also considered that the development did not provide for integration with the town and the town folk. He referred to the isolation and social estrangement (in effect) inherent in the development.

Mrs Bullock (exhibit 23) is president of the Mining Communities United Inc (a community lobby group). She said she was not aware of advertising or organised meetings in respect of the development. She considered there was a lack of support for local business and that the development was based on self-sufficiency with no integration economically or socially with the town.

Ms Davy (exhibit 24) is a kindergarten teacher and expressed the view that there were social implications arising from the existence of a large transient population isolated from the town community.

Mrs Drane (exhibit 25) is co-ordinator at the Collinsville Community Association Inc. Her organisation serves the Collinsville community by looking after the well-being of residents in a social, community and well-being context. She considered that the development did not benefit the town and did not provide for integration.

Mr Nugent (exhibit 26) is a food stall and business proprietor. He considered that the development reflected segregation and isolation from the town community.

Ms Powell (exhibit 27) is a pharmacy manager and expressed concern about the lack of integration of the development with the town community.

Mr Ramage (exhibit 28) is a member of the respondent Council. He considered that alternative form accommodation would attract families to the town. He did not consider that the development provided any benefit to the town and was a satellite development.

Mrs Taylor (exhibit 29) is the manager of the Hillside Age Care Facility. She considered that the development was a self-sufficient satellite community of substantial size and she envisaged social problems, particularly related to the on-site tavern. She expressed the view that the development did not provide encouragement for families to relocate.

Mrs Williams (exhibit 30) is the treasurer of the Mining Community United Inc and a fifth generation Collinsville resident. She referred to the town's history and expressed the view that the town could support workers. She considered the tavern to be an issue. She considered that there was a lack of support for the town and that the appellant did not support local business now.

Mr Woods (exhibit 31) is a supermarket proprietor. He considered the development to be isolated and though there would be little return to their community, either economically or socially. He said there was little support currently from the applicant's operations.

Ms Havill (exhibit 32) is the manager of the United Mine Workers' Club. She considered the development would do nothing for the community. With respect to the proposed tavern, she considered there were already sufficient licensed premises existing in Collinsville.

Mrs Vea Vea (exhibit 33) is the secretary of the Mining Communities' Alliance Inc which focuses on the impact of workers' camps on mining communities and towns. She was involved in the organisation of a petition opposing the development. She referred to social disadvantages in the development. She considered it was isolated both socially and physically from the town. She referred to the ratio of male and female persons in the locality, social division and lack of balanced development. She considered the development would make little contribution to the town community.

Submitters:

There were three submitters. Hillside Haven Aged Care Facility which is situated at the highway east of the town and roughly opposite the proposed development site wrote that their facility had been “established in this area of Collinsville for elderly residents precisely for its name, as a haven. We currently have 12 residents who enjoy a tranquil life surrounded by wildlife in a rural atmosphere thanks largely to the peacefully situated location.” The submission was written by the manager, Ms Hoskin, and expressed concerns that if the development proceeded, a number of issues including security, an increase in noise and an increase in number of vehicles entering and leaving the camp (inferentially, on and off the highway) would need to be addressed.

Both town planners agree that the future need is a reality. In my view, the existing housing stock in the urban area is inadequate; the proposal supplies an essential "people" component for the mining industry; the type of accommodation is mine worker specific and reflects, by reference to shift work, need for privacy, self-sufficiency amongst other things, the reality of the miners work regime.

The site is not GQAL, its distance from the urban area avoids adverse impact arising from its operation, there is no infrastructure burden on the Council, there are community benefits flowing from the appellant's operation of the proposed facility to the town and its community and there is no impact on housing availability or housing cost in the town.

Such grounds in my view overcome the conflict which I have described, with the planning scheme.

Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that there were compelling reasons to refuse the proposal. He referred to Mr Norling's observation that "the simple provision of SPQ's would not contribute to the growth and wellbeing of the Collinsville community." I disagree with that submission.

Grounds to justify approval

I consider that there are sufficient grounds to justify approval despite conflict with the planning scheme. The significant grounds are:

(a) There is a need for additional accommodation for mine workers in the locality;

(b) That need cannot and should not be satisfied on land within the existing township of Collinsville or indeed in or near Scottville);

(c) The proposed development is for a specific type of accommodation targeted at mine workers, and offers a full range of services and facilities required for those workers;

(d) Mine workers, especially shift workers, have specific accommodation needs that are best met by purpose built development such as proposed here, as opposed to utilising existing accommodation in a township (such as flats or houses), and those types of accommodation do not provide separate areas for each employee;

(e) The supervision, health and safety and comfort of mine workers who are employed on shifts is better catered for and managed in a purpose-built SPQ facility such as proposed:

(f) The site is located away from existing residential areas such that any impacts that might arise from the proposed development will not affect existing residents or other land uses;

(g) The site is not identified as GQAL;

(h) The site is at the northern entry to Collinsville in an area which is effectively a transition from the rural area to the township;

(i) All relevant infrastructure can be provided at no cost to the Council or the community;

(j) The proposed development provides accommodation to support the mining industry and other key resource projects which play a significant role in the economy of the region;

(k) The conflict with the Rural Zone is a technical one, in that the proposed development is identified as an 'inconsistent' use in the prevailing zone. The use, however, is connected to the mining industry which is a use that prevails in the locality;

(l) The proposed development will provide significant community benefits, namely: the creation of additional employment opportunities (construction, maintenance and services); and expenditure within the township by mine workers for convenience and other goods and services;

(m) The appellant already provides some meals to the nearby aged care facility that is likely to continue; and the proposed development will ensure that there are no negative and artificial impacts on property prices in town, to the detriment of existing residents".

Mr Schomburgk listed a similar number of grounds that he maintained were sufficient grounds. His view reflects my independent view, as it turns out, about sufficient grounds to justify approval despite conflict with the planning scheme.

Further Discussion

I have referred to the fact that the planning scheme does not specifically provide for a relevant precinct in Collinsville and observed that this does not mean that there is a vacuum in the planning scheme. In that context, the statement in Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council & Ors [2006] QCA 271 at [35] is apposite, that is: “that part of the planning documents had been overtaken by events” and “the fact that planning arrangements were unlikely to achieve the intended result did not determine the matter of conflict, or otherwise, but only tended to lighten the (developer’s) task of demonstrating sufficient planning (sic) grounds.” So much is also illustrated in Palyaris v Gold Coast City Council [2004] QPELR 162, at [42] et seq.

There are further relevant findings on the evidence, even if some have been expressed in other words and context in the judgment:

Benefits will flow to the town community and business from the construction and operation of the proposed facility; the development will add to housing diversity and choice; there will be some integration with the existing community as a matter of inevitability and to the extent that experience elsewhere with similar developments has demonstrated – no form of transient or semi-permanent SPQ will integrate on the same level as permanent residences, regardless of where the SPQ is located; the submitter who is the proprietor of a licensed premises in the town is not likely to be adversely affected by a tavern development as proposed; the retirement home is unlikely to be adversely affected; the proposed use on rural land is justified; there will be interference with or adverse effect on Orderly Development; there is nothing particularly favourable about a site for such a development between Collinsville and Scottville that is superior in a planning context; the proposal has a connection to and is an element of the mining industry as it is now conducted; the size of the Lot is not a relevant or material consideration in the context of the reconfiguration; the site is not ‘remote’ – the distance from the urban area is minimal and inconsequential in planning terms; a construction of the Short Term Accommodation Code contemplates in the abstract sense, a facility such as proposed, in the rural Zone where the land is not GQAL; the tavern is proposed in Stage 3 – I am satisfied that it will most likely have a primary internal focus – and perhaps conceptually it suffers from being described as a ‘tavern’ rather than a ‘wet-mess’; and the motel is most likely to have a specific company or mining industry focus.

Whilst significant expansion in the mining and associated industries in the future was anticipated, some level of uncertainty is inevitable. However, the exhaustive studies of the former Shire in the context of the SDA and the other extensive information analyses referred to in the evidence, is a reliable indicator of a substantial likelihood that expansion as foreshadowed will occur. Hence the needs analysis based on such expansion is in my view supported. I am satisfied that need has been established currently and for the foreshadowed future.

Conclusion

I am satisfied that the site is appropriate for the proposed development and that its approval is supported by the evidence. Hence the appeal should be allowed and the Development Application approved. Conditions will be a matter of agreement or for determination by the Court in a further hearing.

ORDERS

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The Development Application should be approved subject to lawful conditions.

APPENDIX ‘A’

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (“IPA”)

s 1.2.1 sets out the purpose of IPA which is to seek to achieve ecological sustainability by a process of coordination and integration of planning, management of development and the effects of development on the environment, including the use of premises.

s 1.2.2 deals with advancing the purpose of IPA and requires an entity which exercises a function or power to perform the function or exercise the power in a way that advances the purpose of IPA.

s 1.2.3 “What advance in this Act’s purpose includes

(1) Advancing this Act’s purpose includes –

(a) ensuring decision-making processes –

(i) are accountable, coordinated and efficient; and

(ii) take account of short and long-term environment effects of development at local, regional, State and wider levels; and

(iii) apply the precautionary principle; and

(iv) seek to provide for equity between present and future generations; and

…

(d) supplying infrastructure in a co-ordinated, efficient and orderly way, including encouraging urban development in areas where adequate infrastructure exists or can be provided efficiently; and

(e) applying standards of amenity, conservation, energy, health and safety in the built environment that are cost effective and for the public benefit.

s 3.5.5 Impact assessment

(1) This section applies to any part of the application requiring impact assessment.

(2) If the application is heard for development in a planning scheme area, the assessment manager must carry out the impact assessment having regard to the following –

(a) the common material;

(b) the planning scheme and any other relevant local planning instruments.

s 3.5.11 Decision generally

(1) In deciding the application the assessment manager must –

(a) approve all or part of the application and attach to the approval, in the exact form given by the concurrence agency, any concurrence agency conditions; or

(b) approve all or part of the application subject to conditions decided by the assessment manager and attached to the approval, in the exact form given by the concurrence agency, any concurrence agency conditions; or

(c) refuse the application.

s 3.5.14 Decision if application requires impact assessment

(1) This section applies to any part of the application requiring impact assessment.

(2) If the application is for development in a planning scheme area, the assessment manager’s decision must not –

(a) compromise the achievement of the desired environmental outcomes for the planning scheme area; or

(b) conflict with the planning scheme, unless there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.

s 3.5.30 Conditions must be relevant or reasonable

(1) the condition must –

(a) be relevant to, but not an unreasonable imposition on, the development or use of premises as a consequence of the development; or

(b) be reasonably required in respect of the development or use of premises as a consequence of the development.

(2) subsection (1) applies despite the laws that are administered by, and the policies that are reasonably identifiable as policies applied by, an assessment manager or concurrence agency.

s 1.52 Appeal by way of hearing anew.

(1) An appeal is by way of hearing anew.

(2) However, if the appellant is the applicant…for a development application, the court –
(a) …
(b)must not consider a change to the application to which the decision being appealed was made unless the change is only a minor change.

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (“SPA”)

s 350 Meaning of minor change

(1) a minor change in relation to an application, is any of the following changes to the application –

(a) a change that merely corrects a mistake about the name or address of the applicant or owner or the address or other property details of the land to which the application applies, if the assessment manager is satisfied the change would not adversely affect the ability of a person to assess the changed application;

(b) a change of applicant, if the assessment manager is satisfied the change would not adversely affect the ability of the person to assess the changed application;

(c) a change that merely corrects a spelling or grammatical error;

(d) a change that –

(i) does not result in a substantially different development; and

(ii) does not require the application to be referred to any additional referral agencies; and

(iii) does not change the type of development approval sought; and

(iv) does not require impact assessment for any part of the changed application, if the original application did not involve impact assessment.

s 819 Appeals to court – generally

(1) subsection (2) applies if –

(a) a person has appealed to the court under repealed IPA, or repealed IPA as applied another Act, before the commencement; and

(b) the appeal has not been decided before the commencement.

the court must hear, or continue to hear, and decide the appeal under repealed IPA, or repealed IPA as applied under the other Act, as if this Act had not commenced.

#

APPENDIX ‘B’

Bowen Shire Council Planning Scheme 1996:

Section 1.14Outline of the planning scheme

(1) The effects of parts 3, 4 and 5 of this planning scheme on the nature and location of land use and development depicted on the Shire Outline Map is explained as follows:

(a) Land use Pattern – identifies rural land “as Agricultural land and land not required to satisfy expected urban growth"

Section 2.2 Desired Environmental Outcomes

(1) The desired environmental outcomes for Bowen Shire are:

(d) Development protects the economic values of natural resources including good quality agricultural land, extractive and mineral resources, vegetation and water;

(e) Development provides a benefit and satisfies an economic demand of residents of the area in which it is located;

(f) Opportunities for maintaining and improving employment resulting from advancements in information technology and emerging business/industry trends are maximised;

(i) Growth and community development within the Shire focussed on the existing Bowen and Collinsville urban areas to facilitate the efficient use, timely and orderly expansion and continued operation of infrastructure;

(j) Development facilitates diverse housing choice, including affordable housing that is responsive to the changing demographic structure of the Shire's population and promotes equity in access to goods and services;

(k) Development promotes the efficient use and provides for the orderly expansion of the Shire's movement system, including motorised and non-motorised modes;

(l) Development occurs in an area: (i) which is suitable and compatible with the nature of the development; and (ii) in which services and facilities required in respect of the development are existing, planned or provided by the development;

(m) Development does not adversely affect:

(i) the community's health and safety;

(ii) the amenity enjoyed by people in different areas of the Shire; and

(iii) the safe and efficient operation of the transport, energy and other infrastructure supporting the Shire and surrounding region;

(n) Development reflects the community's reasonable expectations and harmonises with the natural environment and does not prejudice the Shire's existing scenic amenity, particularly along the coastal plain;

(o) The Community values of places and landscapes reflecting the community's history and identity are not detrimentally affected by development.

Section 3.1Development Assessment categories and assessment criteria

(4) The codes nominated in Column 3 as assessment criteria for development are applicable as follows:

(c) For impact assessable development –

(i) Development may be assessed against the purpose and the overall and specific outcomes of any relevant code; and

(ii) Development conflicts with the planning scheme if it is inconsistent with any relevant code.

Section 3.2Division 2 – Rural Zone – Table 3A – Material Change of Use

A development such as that proposed is not a Defined Use in the assessment Category and hence is impact assessable.

A bed & breakfast accommodation is Code assessable in the Rural Zone Code and the Short-Term Accommodation Code.

Section 3.3Rural Zone Code

(1) Purpose

(a) The purpose of the Rural Zone Code is the achievement of the overall outcomes sought for the Rural Zone.

(b) The overall outcomes sought for the Rural Zone are:

(i) Land used for rural activities such as grazing, agriculture and horticulture is protected from development which in Council's opinion would significantly infringe on the landscape setting and rural amenity of the Shire;

(ii) Land with productive capacity is preserved for a range of existing and emerging agricultural activities significant to the economy of the Shire and is protected from development that leads to its alienation and fragmentation;

(iii) Agriculture, including both extensive and intensive activities is protected from incompatible uses and land use conflicts resulting from the location of non-rural activities on rural land;

(iv) Uses and works are located and designed to maximise the efficient use and extension and safe operation of infrastructure;

(v) Residential purposes are ancillary to the primary rural purposes in the rural area; and

(vi) Mineral and extractive resources and associated transport routes are protected from incompatible development.

(2) Elements

(a) Land Use and Development

(i) Consistent Uses

Specific Outcomes

O1 (e) Only uses consistent with the overall outcomes for, and preferred for development within the Rural zone, are established in the zone;

(f) The following uses and use classes are consistent with and preferred, within the Rural zone;

(i) All Rural Purposes.

Specific Outcomes

O2 Provided the following uses are developed to:

» be compatible with surrounding rural purposes by being of similar scale, intensity and character; and

» support preferred uses;

» not adversely affect the amenity of the locality; or

» provide recreational or community facilities that are more appropriately located in the Rural zone;

they are consistent uses within the Rural zone:

(NB: the nominated uses do not include a development such as that proposed).

…

(ii) Inconsistent Uses

SO 03 - requires that Inconsistent Uses do not establish in the Rural Zone, do not comply with the overall outcome sought for the Rural Zone and conflict with this Code.

(iii) Subdivision Design

SO 04 - design standards in the Rural Zone specifies a minimum lot size of 100 hectares for land which is not GQAL.

(iv) Density

SO 05 - The density of residential development is compatible with local amenity expressed by the overall outcomes sought for the Rural Zone; and identifies no more than one dwelling house is constructed on a lot as a self-assessable solution.

(v) Character and Amenity

Specific Outcomes

O6 Uses and works are located, designed and operated to minimise adverse impacts on:

» …

» the amenity of adjacent properties and public spaces;

» …

» the health and safety of people using the premises;

» …

» existing community infrastructure.

…

O8 Buildings and Structures are:

» of a type and scale which will have an attractive, functional appearance;

» …

» integrated with the physical attributes of the site, including appropriate provision for access to natural light and ventilation, privacy, noise attenuation, landscaping outlook and off-street parking.…

…

…

(xi) Vehicle Parking and Movement

Specific Outcomes

O15 Development is provided with on-site parking and movement system designed and constructed to:

» integrate with the site layout; …

» accommodate all modes of transport generated by the use; …

» provide for safe and efficient loading and unloading of goods; …

…

(b) Infrastructure

Specific Outcomes

O16 Water supply, wastewater and sullage, drainage, roads, power and communications are provided to meet the appropriate standards of service and construction at least whole-of-life cost…

…

Section 3.7Residential Zone Code

(1) Purpose

(a) The purpose of the Residential Zone Code is the achievement of the overall outcomes sought for the Residential Zone.

(b) The overall outcomes sought for the Residential Zone are:

(i) Residential areas are characterised by high levels of amenity and provide attractive living environments. …

(iii) Development is provided with physical and social infrastructure commensurate with the scale and density of the development. …

(vi) Development is designed to achieve safe and efficient access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

(2) Elements

(a) Land Use and Development

…

(v) Character and Amenity

Specific Outcomes

O6 Uses and works are located, designed and operated to minimise adverse impacts on:

» …

» the amenity of adjacent properties and public spaces;

» …

» the health and safety of people using the premises and adjacent premises; and

» existing community infrastructure.

…

O8 Buildings and Structures are:

» of a type and scale which will have an attractive, functional appearance;

» …

» integrated with the physical attributes of the site…

…

(xi) Vehicle Parking and Movement

Specific Outcomes

O15 Development is provided with on-site parking and movement system designed and constructed to:

» integrate with the site layout; …

» accommodate all modes of transport generated by the use; …

» provide for safe and efficient loading and unloading of goods; …

…

(b) Infrastructure

Specific Outcomes

O16 Water supply, sewerage, drainage, roads, pathways, power and communications is provided to meet the appropriate standards of service and construction at least whole-of-life cost …

…

…

Section 4.13Residential Zone Code

(1) Purpose

(a) The purpose of the Short-Term Accommodation Code is the achievement of the overall outcomes sought for the development of Accommodation buildings and Bed and Breakfast.

(b) The overall outcomes sought are:

(ii) Short-term accommodation facilities are consistent with the scale of existing buildings and structures in the vicinity, and designed to complement the physical character of the local area;

(iii) Short term accommodation facilities are located and designed with regard to the privacy and amenity enjoyed by residents of the premises and any adjacent premises.

(2) Elements

(a) Site Suitability

Specific Outcomes

O1 Premises:

» are located with close proximity to an established urban area or other visitor attraction;

» are visible, or otherwise in close proximity to, transport facilities or routes likely to be used by visitors; and

» have easy, safe and convenient access from the major road network.

Self-assessable Solutions

S1

(b) In the Rural Zone …, premises:

(i) are located within 4 kilometres of:

- the Bowen or Collinsville urban areas indicated on the Shire Outline Map; and/or

- a major tourist facility or attraction; and

(ii) fronts or is within 1 kilometre of a State controlled road…

…

(b) Building Siting and Design – Accommodation Buildings

Specific Outcomes

O3 Accommodation buildings:

» are consistent with the scale of existing buildings and structures in the vicinity;

» have a form and appearance that does not significantly detract from local amenity;

» are sited to minimise direct overlooking of the main living areas of adjacent residences; and

» provide residents of adjacent premises with an adequate sense of visual and acoustic privacy.

O4 Landscaping is established on site to maintain the amenity enjoyed by people using the premises and the adjoining premises

Self-assessable Solutions

S3 …

(b) Despite any other provision of this planning scheme, the minimum setback for buildings is:

(i) 10 metres to a State controlled road; or

(ii) 6 metres to all other roads.

…

(d) A landscaping area with a minimum width of 2 metres and capable of being planted with trees and shrubs featuring dense foliage, is provided between parking, manoeuvring, loading/unloading and outdoor recreation areas and site boundaries.

…

S4 An area of not less than 30% of the total site area is provided and maintained as landscape and recreation area, with no part of the area having a dimension of less than 3 metres.

Schedule 1 - Dictionary

Accommodation building:

Premises for the purpose of providing accommodation, comprising only rooming units, (including motels, boarding-houses, guest houses, itinerant workers accommodation, hostels, serviced rooms, student accommodation, or any similar use), but does not include a Bed and breakfast, Caravan Park, Institutional residence, retirement village, or any other separately defined residential premises.

The term includes a building or buildings or any parts thereof used for the provision of meals to residents (whether or not such facilities are open to public use), common room facilities and the like, or for the purposes of a manager’s residence/office, restaurant and conference facilities.

#

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Morris Corporation Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Regional Council [2011] QPEC 129

Most Recent Citation

Maridahdi Early Childhood Community v Toowoomba Regional Council [2012] QPEC 40

Cases Citing This Decision

1

Maridahdi Early Childhood Community v Toowoomba Regional Council [2012] QPEC 40

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

1

Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council [2006] QCA 271

CITATION:	Morris Corporation Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Regional Council [2011] QPEC 129
PARTIES:	MORRIS CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 070 136 220 (Appellant) AND WHITSUNDAY REGIONAL COUNCIL (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D308 of 2009
DIVISION:	Planning & Environment
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning & Environment Court, Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	30 September, 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATES:	08, 09, 10, 15, 16, 17 November 2010 and 08 December 2010
JUDGE:	Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:	1 Appeal allowed. 2 The Development Application should be approved subject to lawful conditions.
CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION: PLANNING SCHEME: CASES:	PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT – PLANNING SCHEME - STAGED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL ZONE – proposed development of 768 person purpose-built single men quarters accommodation facilities – staged development intended to respond to future demand projections – whether orderly development – whether need established – efficacy of survey of township community attitudes - whether visual amenity impacts – whether adverse social and economic impacts. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT – PLANNING SCHEME - RURAL ZONE – urban residential use proposed for Rural Area – residential accommodation for mining industry workforce – location outside urban township footprint – whether out-of-sequence development – whether DEOs compromised – whether Overall Outcomes for Rural Zone compromised – whether conflict with planning scheme Strategic Framework, Rural Zone Code and Short term Accommodation Code. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT - SCALE , FORM AND DENSITY – proposed location in Rural Zone – whether alternative sites including ‘infill’ between two currently separated urban township areas (Collinsville and Scottsville) preferable – whether negative impacts on township in economic, social and aesthetic contexts. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT – CONFLICT WITH PLANNING SCHEME – whether conflict and if so whether sufficient grounds to justify approval despite conflict. Integrated Planning Act 1997 ss 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.11, 3.5.14, 3.5.30, 4.1.28, 4.1.52; Sustainable Planning Act 2009 ss 350 and 819 Bowen Shire Council Planning Scheme 1996 NevTan Investments Pty Ltd v Belyando Shire Council [2008] QPELR 326; Family Assets Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (2008) 161 LGERA 43; Westfield Management Limited v Pine Rivers Shire Council [2004] QPELR 337;Weightman v Gold Coast City Council [2003] Qd R 441; [2003 Qd R 44; Woolworths Ltd v Maryborough City Council (No 2) (2006) 1 Qd R 273; Main Beach Progress Association Inc v Gold Coast City Council [2008] 164 LGERA 233; Grosser v Council of the City of Gold Coast (2001) 117 LGERA 153; Webster v Caboolture City Council [2009] QPELR 455; Luke v Maroochy Shire Council [20023] QPELR 447; Aldi Stores v Redland City Council [2009] QCA 346; Bunnings v Redland City Council [2003] QPELR 624; Australian Capital Holdings Pty Ltd v Mackay City Council [2008] QCA 157; Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council [2006] QCA 271; Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council (1997) 2 Qd R 31; Cut Price Stores Retailers v Caboolture Shire Council [1984] QPELR 126; Arapower Pty Ltd v Gladstone City Council [2003] QPELR 506; Arksmead v Council of the City of Gold Coast [1999] QPELR 322; Arksmead v Gold Coast City Council [2001] 1 Qd R 347; Warradale Holdings Pty Ltd v Caloundra City Council [1998] QPELR 503; Prime Group Properties Ltd v Caloundra City Council & Ors (1995) QPELR 147; Broad v Brisbane City Council & Anor (1986) 2 Qd R 317; Vacuum Oil Company Pty Ltd v Ashfield Municipal Council [1956] 2 LGERA 8; Bassingthwaighte v Roma Town Council [2010] QPEC 91; PMM Brisbane Pty Ltd v Nebo Shire Council [2008] QPELR 43; Koerner v Maroochy Shire Council [2004] QPELR 211; Handley v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2005] QPELR 80; Kotku Education and Welfare Society Incv Brisbane City Council & Ors [2005] QPELR 276; Blue Sky Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2010] QPEC 16; Mackay Conservation Group Inc v Mackay City Council& East Point Mackay Pty Ltd [2005] QPEC 094; Palyarus v Gold Coast City Council [2004] QPELR 162; Sheezel & Anor v Noosa Shire Council [1980] QPLR 130; Canine Caterers Pty Ltd v Torres Shire Council (1975) 33 LGRA 182; Bad Girls Maroochy Pty Ltd v CE Department of Tourism, Recreation & Fair trading [2004] QCA 45; Baptist Union of Queensland v BCC & Anor [2003] QPELR 61; Central Equity Limited v Gold Coast City Council [2007] QPELR 356.
COUNSEL:	C Hughes SC and E Morzone for the appellant RS Litster SC and ED Job for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Emanate Legal for the appellant McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the respondent