SLS Property Group P/L v Townsville CC; Catchlove v Townsville CC

The applicants, SLS Property Group P/L and Catchlove, sought leave to appeal from the Planning and Environment Court to the Full Court against the decision of the court below which dismissed their appeal against the Townsville City Council's decision to approve a material change of use of vacant land. The applicants' appeal to the Planning and Environment Court was against the council's decision to approve the first stage of their proposed development only, and sought declarations that the approval was invalid as the council was not empowered to approve only the first stage. The applicants contended that the approval of the first stage only would have a detrimental effect on the development as a whole.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants were entitled to leave to appeal against the decision of the Planning and Environment Court on the basis of an error of law. The applicants argued that the court below erred in finding that the council had the power to approve the first stage of the development only, without approving the second stage, and that such an approval would have the effect of rendering the overall development unviable. The applicants submitted that the approval of the first stage only was not in accordance with the statutory provisions governing development applications and the relevant planning scheme.

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the decision of the Planning and Environment Court involved an error of law. The court held that the council had the power to approve the first stage of the development only, and that such an approval did not render the overall development unviable. The court further held that the applicants had failed to establish that the approval of the first stage only was not in accordance with the statutory provisions governing development applications and the relevant planning scheme. The court found that the Planning and Environment Court had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions and applied them to the facts of the case. Consequently, the court refused the applications for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicants pay the costs of the other parties to the applications to be assessed on the standard basis.