Woodman McDonald Hardware P/L v Mackay Regional Council

The appeal was brought by Woodman McDonald Hardware P/L against the Mackay Regional Council's decision to approve a development application for a large format Bunnings hardware. The key issues in this case were whether the proposed development conflicted with the centres hierarchy, whether the use of Industry (High Impact) Zone land for a non-industrial use was appropriate, and if the grounds for approval were sufficient. The appeal also questioned whether there was an economic or planning need for the development, the potential adverse impacts, and the absence of amenity and traffic impacts as grounds for approval. Additionally, the appeal considered whether the council should have taken into account the published draft planning scheme and whether the approval would sabotage forward planning or have a significant adverse impact on a planned facility.

The Mackay Regional Council argued that the development did not conflict with the centres hierarchy, as the proposal was in line with the strategic objectives outlined in the Mackay Regional Plan 2014. The council also stated that the use of Industry (High Impact) Zone land for a non-industrial use was acceptable, as the land was zoned for this purpose. Furthermore, the council asserted that there was an economic need for the development, as it would contribute to the local economy by creating jobs and attracting customers. The council also maintained that there was no significant adverse impact on amenity or traffic, and that the approval would not sabotage forward planning or have a significant adverse impact on a planned facility.

The court found that the Mackay Regional Council's decision to approve the development application was not unreasonable, and that the council had adequately considered the relevant factors. The court determined that the development did not conflict with the centres hierarchy, and that the use of Industry (High Impact) Zone land for a non-industrial use was appropriate. The court also found that there was an economic need for the development, and that the approval would not have a significant adverse impact on amenity or traffic. The court further held that the absence of amenity and traffic impacts could be considered as grounds for approval, and that the council was not required to have regard to the published draft planning scheme.

The appeal is adjourned to a date to be fixed to enable the parties to make submissions as to appropriate conditions of approval. The court invites the parties to consider the possibility of reaching an agreement on the terms of the development approval, which could potentially avoid further legal proceedings.