Planning and Environment Case Review – October 2025

In the latest Planning and Environment Case Review, we discuss three recent court decisions including;

• a case where the P&E Court upheld Council’s decision to refuse a development application for a service station and fast food outlets;
• consideration of an error in the ICN issued by the Council in connection with a development at Rochedale; and
• change to a development proposal at Samford Village that was found to be not a minor change.

Decision 1: Paradise Holdings (Qld) Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Ors [2025] QPEC 21

In this case, the Planning and Environment Court upheld the Council’s decision to refuse a development application for a service station and fast-food outlets on rural zone land in Pacific Paradise.

The site was in many ways an ideal development site for the proposal – it was large, flat, cleared, and relatively unconstrained (except with respect to flooding). It had lengthy frontages to two major roads; David Low Way and an offramp from the Sunshine Motorway and there were no adjoining residential neighbours. However, the Court noted that “it was important not to be drawn too far along a path towards approval by a first principles assessment”.

The Court observed that the Council’s planning scheme had strong policies directed towards:

1. flood plain and flood hazard management;
2. the protection and enhancement of scenic and landscape values of importance to the character and identify the planning scheme area; and
3. the management of future growth in the planning scheme area and the resulting settlement pattern.

On those three points, the Court held:

1. Although it could be accepted that the development could be managed, so that flood impacts were mitigated so there was no foreseeable risk to life of property, the development did not satisfy the relevant stated exceptions in the planning scheme around the erection of a building on land subject to flooding in a defined event. It was, therefore, expressly discouraged by the Planning Scheme, and contrary to forward planning.
2. The development would adversely impact landscape and scenic amenity values, with adverse impacts on the visual amenity of two scenic routes. This was predominantly due to the size and form of the development, described by the Court as having “the appearance of an urban design solution in a rural landscape setting”. The Court held the development would, by reason of its scale and likely intensity “stand in stark contrast to its surrounding context” in circumstances where that was not contemplated by the scheme.
3. The development was also not appropriate in the rural zone, having regard to its location, scale and intensity. Visual amenity concerns were also a material component of the Court’s finding on this issue.

Relevant matters such as need were described as underwhelming for some aspects of the development, and not sufficient to tip the balance in favour of an approval.

Decision 2: Rochedale Development Partners v Brisbane City Council [2025] QPEC 16

There are relatively few decisions of the Planning and Environment Court dealing with challenges to Infrastructure Charges Notices (ICNs). In this case, the Court was asked to consider whether there was an error in an ICN issued by the Council in connection with a development at Rochedale. The appellant alleged there had been a non-compliance with the valuation method in the infrastructure charges resolution, resulting in an error in the establishment cost for land (for trunk park) recorded in the ICN.

The history of the development site was relevant to the issues:

• The Appellant had purchased the 3.3ha site for $5.65 million pursuant to a put and call option agreement dated 27 September 2021.
• The development application was lodged in May 2022, and approved in September 2023.
• The approval required dedication of 1.6ha of land for park purposes.
• The original ICN recorded an establishment cost of around $1.1 million for the trunk park.
• The Appellant asserted the value of the land for the park dedication was $6 million.
• The Appellant’s valuation did not rely on the sale of the site as a comparable sale.

It had been discounted on the basis that the sale of the price had been agreed 12 months prior to the relevant date of valuation, and there had been strong market movement between those dates.

After a recalculation application, Council revalued the establishment cost of the trunk land at $3.6 million. That was not accepted by the Applicant. A further independent valuation of the land put the establishment cost at $4.015 million and the Council issued an amended ICN adopting that value.

The issue for the Court was whether the independent valuation had followed the process in Council’s charges resolution. The key point was whether there was compliance with section 25(a) which requires an assessment of current market value, using the before and after method of valuation and, critically, first “determining the value (original land value) of the original land of which the required land forms part (original land) before the required land is transferred to the local government”.

The independent valuation included the sale of the subject site (acknowledging, however, that some allowance should be made for market growth). The analysis of that sale was said to be based on the total area of the site, without any deduction for the area required for the park i.e. as if the land required for the park had never been identified or required, and the whole of the site was developable in the “before” case.

The Appellant alleged that the independent valuation did not ignore the trunk requirements. It submitted that it was obvious by looking at the six comparable sales used in the independent valuation, where the sale of the land was the lowest (on a rate per square meter basis) and, on the Appellant’s case, effected in circumstances where the trunk requirement was reflected in the purchase price. That is, the appellant submitted that the purchaser of the land would have been aware that over 50% of the land was identified in Council’s LGIP as a trunk park requirement, and that would have undoubtedly affected the purchase price. The Appellant was concerned that the independent valuation had not accounted for that in its analysis of comparable sales and, therefore, had not ignored any trunk requirements.

The Court disagreed, finding that the valuation was based on a number of sales, considered according to each site’s different attributes, and with “and trunk requirements” ignored, as required by section 25(a) of the Charges Resolution. In addition, the Court noted that the valuer had applied his skill and judgment to critically analyse the sales, before using them in the process of valuing the land.

The Court was satisfied that the independent valuation had been completed in accordance with the Charges Resolution, and there was no error in the final ICN which had been issued in reliance on it.

Decision 3: SVMJ 1234 Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2025] QPEC 7

This is an example of a change to a development proposal that was found to be not a minor change.

The substantive appeal related to Council’s deemed refusal of a mixed-use development (shops, office, food and drink outlet and health care services) on land at Junction Road, Samford Village. The Court had allowed a previous minor change application which reduced the height of the building. The second minor change sought further design refinements including a further reduction in height, a reduction in the number of tenancies proposed, and changes to built form.

The Court recognised that the changes were ameliorative, and accepted the evidence that they would represent better outcomes from a noise and traffic perspective. However, the judge observed that there were substantial design consequences, with the architectural treatment resulting in a “very different building”. The most stark differences noted by the Court related to the Junction Street elevation, with the Court commenting that what was originally proposed as a relatively unimposing two-storey structure with covered access would become very different, in terms of bulk and density.

The Court found the design changes resulted in a materially different development, and that the proposed change was not minor.