Room2Move.com Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council - [2019] QPEC 34

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Room2Move.com Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2019] QPEC 34

PARTIES:

ROOM2MOVE.COM PTY LTD
(ACN 149 039 805)
(Appellant)

v

WESTERN DOWNS REGIONAL COUNCIL
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

2255/18

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment Court

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20, 27, 28 and 29 May 2019

JUDGE:

Williamson QC DCJ

ORDER:

Orders made in accordance with paragraph [129] of these reasons for judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where appeal against decision to refuse an extension application under s.87 of the Planning Act 2016 – whether the currency period for a development approval for non-resident workforce accommodation should be extended – whether there is a need for the development approval – whether the development approval would cut across the respondent’s forward planning.

LEGISLATION:

Planning Act 2016, ss. 45, 60 86, 87 & Schedule 2
Planning and Environment Court Act 2016, ss. 43 and 45

Sustainable Planning Act 2009, Schedule 1.

CASES:

Ausco Modular Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council & Anor [2017] QPEC 58
Bunnings Building Supplies Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council & Ors [2000] QPELR 193
Ecovale Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [1999] 2 Qd R 35
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573
Yu Feng Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2007] QCA 382

COUNSEL:

Mr CL Hughes QC and Mr M Batty for the appellant
Mr JG Lyons for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the appellant
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the respondent

Introduction

On 13 April 2018, the appellant made an application[1] to the Council to extend the currency period for a development approval. The extension sought was for a period of 12 months.
[1] Which is defined as an ‘extension application’ in s.86 of the Planning Act 2016 (PA).

The development approval the subject of the extension application was granted in October 2013, and attaches to land situated at Laycock Road, Miles (the land). The approval authorises the making of a material change of use to ‘establish non-resident workforce accommodation (1,292 accommodation units)’. It was granted subject to conditions, some of which have been changed during the life of the approval. The changed conditions require the development to be carried out in 23 stages, with all stages completed within 4 years of the date the use commences. A further condition requires the use to cease within 15 years of its commencement. The currency period for the development approval was due to expire on 15 April 2018.

On 23 May 2018, the Council resolved to refuse the appellant’s extension application. This decision was communicated by way of decision notice dated 29 May 2018, which stated six reasons for the refusal, including the following:

“The applicant has not demonstrated that overriding community need exists for the development to establish on a site where the use…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Room2Move.com Pty Ltd v Western Downs 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: [2019] QPEC 34
Decision Date: 26 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Room2Move.com Pty Ltd, the appellant, appealed against the decision of the Western Downs Regional Council, the respondent, to refuse an extension application under section 87 of the Planning Act 2016. The application sought an extension of the currency period for a development approval for non-resident workforce accommodation. The refusal was based on the council’s assessment that there was no need for the development approval and that it would cut across the council’s forward planning.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the appellant had established a need for the development approval and whether granting the approval would conflict with the respondent's forward planning. The appellant argued that there was a clear need for the development approval due to the demand for workforce accommodation and that the approval would not conflict with the respondent's planning objectives. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that there was no need for the development approval and that granting it would undermine their forward planning.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and found that the appellant had not demonstrated a clear need for the development approval. Additionally, the court found that granting the approval would indeed conflict with the respondent's forward planning, as it would not align with the council's goals for sustainable development and land use. Consequently, the court upheld the respondent's decision to refuse the extension application.

The final orders of the court were in accordance with paragraph [129] of the reasons for judgment, affirming the respondent's decision to refuse the extension application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made in accordance with paragraph [129] of these reasons for judgment.

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.

CITATION:	Room2Move.com Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2019] QPEC 34
PARTIES:	ROOM2MOVE.COM PTY LTD (ACN 149 039 805) (Appellant) v WESTERN DOWNS REGIONAL COUNCIL (Respondent)
FILE NO:	2255/18
DIVISION:	Planning and Environment Court
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 July 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20, 27, 28 and 29 May 2019
JUDGE:	Williamson QC DCJ
ORDER:	Orders made in accordance with paragraph [129] of these reasons for judgment.
CATCHWORDS:	PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where appeal against decision to refuse an extension application under s.87 of the Planning Act 2016 – whether the currency period for a development approval for non-resident workforce accommodation should be extended – whether there is a need for the development approval – whether the development approval would cut across the respondent’s forward planning.
LEGISLATION:	Planning Act 2016, ss. 45, 60 86, 87 & Schedule 2 Planning and Environment Court Act 2016, ss. 43 and 45 Sustainable Planning Act 2009, Schedule 1.
CASES:	Ausco Modular Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council & Anor [2017] QPEC 58 Bunnings Building Supplies Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council & Ors [2000] QPELR 193 Ecovale Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [1999] 2 Qd R 35 Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573 Yu Feng Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2007] QCA 382
COUNSEL:	Mr CL Hughes QC and Mr M Batty for the appellant Mr JG Lyons for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the appellant McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the respondent