Stockwell Development Group Pty Ltd v Bundaberg Regional Council

In Stockwell Development Group Pty Ltd v Bundaberg Regional Council, the appellant, Stockwell Development Group, appealed against the respondent, Bundaberg Regional Council, decision to approve a development application for a supermarket based shopping centre in the Local centre zone. The proposed development was intended to include a major full-line supermarket, which was anticipated in the Local centre zone subject to the demonstration of need. The economic need experts agreed that a need was demonstrated for a major full-line supermarket to serve an identified trade area, and the proposed development was included in the identified trade area. The appeal centred on whether the proposed development would adversely impact on the respondent’s forward planning policy about an activity centre network servicing the Bundaberg region, and whether the proposed full-line supermarket was more appropriately located at the appellant’s shopping centre.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed development would adversely impact on the respondent’s forward planning policy about an activity centre network servicing the Bundaberg region, and whether impacts from the proposed development on specific centres in the network gave rise to non-compliance with the planning scheme. The court also needed to determine whether the proposed full-line supermarket was more appropriately located at the appellant’s shopping centre, and whether there were relevant matters that called for approval or refusal of the co-respondent’s development application. The court had to consider whether the planning discretion should be exercised in favour of approval or refusal.

The court found that the proposed development could be conditioned to meet the identified need absent unacceptable impacts on amenity, and that the proposed development did not give rise to non-compliance with the planning scheme. The court also found that there were relevant matters that called for refusal of the co-respondent’s development application, but that the planning discretion should be exercised in favour of approval. The appeal was allowed in part, and the co-respondent’s development application was approved subject to the conditions contained in the respondent’s negotiated decision notice dated 11 September 2023, save for the final bullet point of condition 4, which was to be deleted.