Prettejohn v Cairns Regional Council

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prettejohn v Cairns Regional Council & Ors [2012] QPEC 23

PARTIES:

ROBERT HUGH PRETTEJOHN
(Appellant)
v
CAIRNS REGIONAL COUNCIL
(Respondent)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
(First Co-respondent by Election)
SAVE OUR SLOPES COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP INC
(Second Co-respondent by Election)

FILE NO/S:

159 of 2010

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

30 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

6-17 February and 5-8 March 2012

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – PLANNING SCHEMES – CONSTRUCTION OF PLANNING SCHEMES –conflict with planning scheme – conflict with the strategic plan- grounds – complex engineering solutions – minor earthworks – visual amenity

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.1.52, s 4.1.52(2), s 6.1.28, s 6.1.29(3), s6.1.30(3)
Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 (Qld), s 4.4(3)(b), s 4.4(5A), s 5.1(6A)
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), s 819

Elan Capital Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor v Brisbane City Council & Ors [1990] QPLR 209
Palyaris v Gold Coast City Council [2004] QPELR 162
Weightman v Gold Coast City Council [2003] 2 QdR 441

COUNSEL:

C Hughes SC and T Fantin for the Appellant
R Litster SC and P Djohan for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Williams Graham Carman for the Appellant
MacDonnells Law for the Respondent
Environmental Defenders’ Office of Northern Queensland Inc for the Second Co-respondent by Election

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent on 7 July 2010 to refuse a development application for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for dwelling houses and a Development Permit for Reconfiguration of a Lot on land at Taylor Point north of Cairns.

  1. The development application, the subject of this appeal, currently seeks the reconfiguration of Lot 10 on RP 24040 into 30 residential lots plus park and a material change of use for dwelling houses (“the development application”).

  1. The subject site covers the entire currently undeveloped area known as Taylor Point, an area of approximately 18.8 hectares which has frontages to Marana Street, Moore Street and Wilmas Street, Trinity Beach to the south, the only landward side. 

  1. The topography of the site consists of low lying land adjacent to the beach to the west and south west, steep rocky cliff faces to the east and a combination of rocky outcrops and beach to the north.  Internally, the site rises to a steep ridge running generally in a northerly direction through the site, with a series of gullies running down from this ridge.[1]

    [1]Ex 5 para 3.1.2

  1. The site is a well vegetated coastal headland with a variety of vegetation including vine forest which is predominantly on the western side and open forest on the ridge and on the eastern side.  Although the precise mix of vegetation was the subject of some dispute, it is currently mapped as showing five remnant regional ecosystems, three of which are classified as being of concern.[2]

    [2]Ex 13 para 1.1

  1. Historically,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Prettejohn v Cairns Regional Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] QPEC 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal from a decision of the Land Court which had found that a proposed development in the locality of Mulgrave Valley was inconsistent with the planning scheme and strategic plan of the Cairns Regional Council. The applicants, Prettejohn, sought to develop their land in a way that would have required some minor earthworks and the installation of a complex engineering solution to divert stormwater. The council opposed the application, contending that the development would conflict with both the planning scheme and the strategic plan. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the proposed development was consistent with the planning scheme and strategic plan, and whether the council’s decision to refuse development approval was lawful. The Court of Appeal found that the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the locality and would conflict with the planning scheme and strategic plan. The Court of Appeal held that the council's decision to refuse development approval was lawful and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the planning scheme and strategic plan provided clear guidance on the type of development that was appropriate for the locality, and that the proposed development did not align with this guidance. The Court of Appeal also found that the proposed engineering solution, while complex, was not sufficient to overcome the conflict with the planning scheme and strategic plan. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Land Court was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.