Parmac Property Pty Ltd v Redland City Council

Parmac Property Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Redland City Council to endorse a "minor change" to a development approval, which they claimed was not a minor change as defined under the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The original development application had been for a mix of four shops at ground level and 31 car spaces on a site predominantly designated for residential use. The change proposed by the respondent, Redland City Council, involved transforming the entire site into a parking lot with 58 spaces and raising the shops above ground level by 750 mm. The applicant, who had failed to object to the initial application and subsequent minor change, argued that the public notification was invalid for not describing the proposal as an "expansion of shops" as well as a medical centre. They also contended that the public notification stage should be repeated and that the respondent should not be relieved from this requirement.

The court had to decide whether the Council's decision to endorse the minor change was valid, whether the public notification was adequate, and if the public notification stage should be repeated. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the respondent should be relieved from this requirement and if a condition should be attached to the relief, entitling the applicant more time to lodge a submission. The Council's delegate had set aside concerns about further unspecified development on the basis that an impact assessable application would be required for it. The court had to consider whether it was reasonable for the delegate to hold the opinion that it was unlikely there would be objections if the original application had incorporated the changes. Furthermore, the court needed to determine under which sections the delegate should have proceeded.

The court found that the Council’s decision was not reasonable as it was unlikely that there would be no objections if the original application had incorporated the changes. The public notification was deemed invalid for not describing the proposal as an "expansion of shops." The court held that the public notification stage should be repeated, but the respondent should be relieved from this requirement. The court granted the applicant extended time to lodge a submission objecting to the respondent's current development application. Consequently, the declaration of invalidity of the Council's earlier change to the existing development approval was made.