Welcome to Envisage.
The passage of the new suite of planning legislation, the Planning Act 2015 (and Planning and Environment Court Act 2015 and Planning (Consequential) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill Act), on 25 May 2016 was a momentous milestone for planning and development in Queensland, marking the culmination of years of consultation about planning reform. In his Winter Envisage article, David reflects on the problems of the existing and previous planning regimes, and provides his perspective on whether the new Planning Act will make any difference to Queensland’s planning and development landscape. For my part, I believe that the State Government’s oversight of local government planning schemes is critical to ensuring that the new assessment and decision rules function as intended.
While the State has tended to confine itself during the “State Interest” check to giving directions about “big ticket” State Interests such main roads, transport and matters of State environmental significance, it is surely a State Interest, having regard to the purpose of the Planning Act, to ensure that planning schemes are drafted to support the ambitions of the new planning regime and, importantly, not actively work against those goals. For that reason, in my opinion, the State must take a more active role in using the State Interest check process to moderate scheme drafting that fails to embrace the aims of the new planning legislation. Olivia’s article this quarter is timely given the recent coastal weather events in New South Wales as it looks at a part of the new Planning Act that proved particularly controversial – the changes to the provisions about compensation for natural hazards.
My article about the Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 examines some of the key stakeholder submissions in respect of that Bill in an effort to predict where the vegetation management agenda might head next. Since writing that article, the Agriculture and Environment Committee has delivered its report (on 30 June 2016). Noting that the Bill polarised views among submitters, the Committee was unable to reach a majority decision as to whether the Bill be passed. Notably, two strong statements of reservation are appended to the report – from the opposition members of the Committee and the Member for Mount Isa, Rob Katter MP.
Robyn touches on the next significant piece of planning for South- East Queensland – the expected release of a draft new South-East Queensland Regional Plan later in 2016. Her article comments on some of the early information released by the State Government, in particular the likely focus on infill development . A number of the articles in Winter Envisage analyse recent significant Court decisions. David’s article examines the Court of Appeal’s approach to interpreting development approvals and issues of prospective illegality in Fraser Coast Regional Council v Walter Elliott Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 19.
David also provides an update on the Brisbane City Council v Gerhardt [2016] QCA 76 in his article “Gerhardt revisited”. Gemma’s case note on the decision in Body Corporate for Surfers International Community Titles Scheme 12247 v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2016] QPEC 29 questions whether the Court’s approach in that case sits comfortably with the accepted approach to construing planning schemes. Amye’s article rounds out our consideration of recent case law by examining two instances where the Planning and Environment Court has declined to order costs in the context of declaratory proceedings against parties with noncommercial interests in the result. Finally in this edition of Envisage, James continues his specialist series of articles in relation to resumption and compensation, focusing on the established principles regarding the circumstances in which the costs attributable to the time spent by a claimant in preparing a compensation claim will be recoverable.
Enjoy the Envisage Winter 2016 edition.