Steendyk v Brisbane City Council & Ors

In the matter of Steendyk v Brisbane City Council & Ors, the court was asked to determine whether the Brisbane City Council’s decision to approve a permissible change to an existing development approval was legally sound. The plaintiff, Steendyk, sought declaratory relief in relation to the Council’s decision. The central issues before the court were whether the Council’s delegate was required to consider specific statutory matters when determining if a proposed change was permissible, whether subsequent owners are bound by prior development approvals that are no longer relied upon, the scope of the material considered by the Council’s delegate, the imputation of knowledge to the delegate, and the legality of the Council's decision-making process.

The court examined whether the responsible entity must consider the matters outlined in s 374 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 when determining if a proposed change is permissible, as defined by s 367(1). The court concluded that s 367 and s 374 address distinct aspects of the process. While s 367 defines what constitutes a permissible change, s 374 pertains to the assessment of the request. The court found no requirement for the responsible entity to consider the matters in s 374 when determining if a change is permissible, as these sections pertain to different stages of the process. Additionally, the court found that the subsequent owner is not bound by an earlier development approval that is no longer relied upon. The court also clarified that the Council's delegate cannot be imputed with knowledge of matters not explicitly referenced in the material before them but within the broader corporate knowledge of the Council.

Ultimately, the court found that the Council's decision was legally reasonable and did not suffer from any failure to consider relevant factors or the inclusion of irrelevant ones. The court dismissed the plaintiff's originating application, affirming the Council's decision.