Welcome to the Autumn 2016 edition of Envisage. The last quarter has seen a marked increase in legislative and policy activity in the planning and environment space. In March 2016, the Environment Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016 (EP Act Amendment Bill) and the Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 (VM Act Amendment Bill) were introduced to Parliament by Ministers Miles and Trad respectively. The Agriculture and Environment Committee reported on the EP Act Amendment Bill on 15 April 2016 and is to report on the VM Act Amendment Bill by 30 June 2016. Both Bills propose significant amendments to the respective principal Acts, and will be the subject of a breakfast seminar; Spotlight on Environment: Bill Skills, to be delivered by HopgoodGanim Lawyers’ Planning and Development team on Wednesday, 27 April 2016.
Other State government activities are the subject of various articles in this edition of Envisage. Thomas Buckley examines principles that have emerged in relation to planning decisions involving future transport corridors, while Olivia Williamson discusses the recent introduction of enforceable undertakings under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 as a new compliance tool. Olivia also provides an overview of the new Toowoomba Railway Parklands Priority Development Area development scheme which as approved on 28 January 2016. The local government elections were also held in March 2016, with incumbent mayors largely being returned across south-east Queensland councils. On the local government front, David Nicholls and Olivia Williamson critically analyse the Brisbane City Council’s Natural Assets Local Law 2003 (NALL), concluding that there is a clear need to reform the methodology of the NALL.
Robyn Lamb’s case summary of the decision in Golder v Maranoa Regional Council & Ors [2014] QPEC 68 serves as a reminder of a local government’s responsibility for assessing and deciding development applications. David’s article about the use of covenants as a development control mechanism canvases a range of factors to consider in relation to the lawfulness of a condition requiring a convenant, as well as the implications that flow from the permanent nature of covenants.
In our regular section about resumption and compensation, James Ireland and Olivia Williamson consider the important Court of Appeal decision in Chong & Yang v Logan City Council [2016] QCA 12 – a case that analyses section 705 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009,
the provision that entitles an owner of an interest in land to be paid reasonable compensation if as a result of a change to the planning scheme or planning scheme policy the only purpose for which land can be used is a public purpose. James and Gemma Chadwick also provide a useful overview of the concepts of “disturbance” and “costs attributable to disturbance” in the context of compensation for vacating land.
Thank you for taking the time to read our Autumn 2016 edition. As always, please email the writer with any suggested topics for future editions or seminars and we hope to see some of you at our seminar on Wednesday, 27 April 2016.