Stockland Developments Pty Ltd v Thuringowa City Council

Stockland Developments Pty Ltd sought preliminary approval from Thuringowa City Council for a material change of use of vacant land to a supermarket and shopping complex with a gross floor area (GFA) of 4500 m2. The Council approved the application, but the approval was subject to certain conditions. The decision was challenged by adverse submitters who argued that the application could neither override the superseded planning scheme nor the current planning scheme. They also contended that the application did not include mandatory parts, and that the Council had not provided a public notification period of 30 business days as required by law.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Council had the power to approve the application, and if so, whether the approval was valid. The court had to consider whether the application could override the superseded planning scheme or the current planning scheme, whether the application included all mandatory parts, and whether the Council had provided adequate public notification. The court also had to determine whether any non-compliance with the planning scheme or notification requirements could be excused.

The court found that the Council had the power to approve the application, but that the approval was not valid because it did not comply with certain requirements of the planning scheme. The court held that the application could not override the superseded planning scheme or the current planning scheme, and that the application did not include all mandatory parts. The court also found that the Council had not provided adequate public notification. However, the court held that any non-compliance could be excused because the Council had acted in good faith and had not caused any prejudice to the appellant. The court therefore held that the application was authorised, but returned it to the application stage so that a proper acknowledgment notice directing compliance could issue.

The court ordered that the application be returned to the application stage, so that a proper acknowledgment notice directing compliance could issue. The court also ordered that the appellant bear its own costs of the proceedings.