LKM July 2016 to June 2017 (CBP)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Buil Welcome to Colin Biggers & Paisley Colin Biggers & Paisley was founded over a century ago and today has offices in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. We provide a personalised service for our clients with our partners taking a hands-on approach to every project. We have both the capacity and the expertise to deliver on complex regional, national and international projects in the following areas of practice: . Commercial and corporate and dispute resolution . Construction and engineering . Insurance . Property and development Construction & Engineering Group Colin Biggers & Paisley has one of the largest specialist construction and engineering practices in Australia with over 35 partners, special counsels and senior associates. Our Construction & Engineering group has the following specialist expertise: . Construction disputes . Major projects and infrastructure . Commercial and residential projects Planning Government Infrastructure & Environment Team Our Planning Government Infrastructure & Environment team are the trusted partners of public and private sector entities. We are the legal and policy designers of strategic and tactical solutions to complex problems in the fields of planning, government, infrastructure and environment. Our team has a deep understanding of what is required to deliver a complex project and has more than 50 years experience in designing innovative outcomes for development and infrastructure projects, including new cities, towns and communities. We provide the following specialist expertise: Planning Strategic and tactical planning of development issues and processes for major residential communities, commercial and industrial projects. Government In-depth understanding of government legislation, policy and processes. Infrastructure Specialist expertise and experience in infrastructure planning, funding and delivery. Environment Legal excellence in all areas of environmental law and policy. Contents INDEX .................................................................................................................................. iv TABLE OF LEGISLATION ................................................................................................. viii TABLE OF CASES .............................................................................................................. ix Key implications of the Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan (ShapingSEQ) 1 Court allowed appeal against approval of multi-unit dwellings, finding conflicts with the Brisbane City Plan 2000 and insufficient grounds to justify an approval 3 Legal professional privilege: when does the court determine to waive the privilege? 5 Deemed approvals are not without risk 7 Court approves demolition of isolated pre-1947 house on busy arterial road 9 Proposed self-storage facility refused in the low density residential zone 11 Despite significant conflict in respect of the height of the building, the court found the proposed development to be of substantial merit 13 Landowners found to be in contempt of court 15 Does the Draft Queensland Housing Code represent a way forward? 17 Proposed amendments to Environmental Planning and Assessment Act released 19 Criminal prosecutions for merged councils: A marriage of convenience 29 Integrity of Townsville's centres hierarchy maintained by Planning and Environment Court 31 Court finds council negligent for incorrectly describing the zoning of land in a Limited Town Planning Certificate 33 Owner of land is responsible for infrastructure charges even where they are not the applicant 36 Carrying out assessable development without an effective development permit, and the appropriate exercise of the court's discretionary power to grant declarations and enforcement orders 38 The 10 commandments governing conditions of consent 40 Court allows an appeal to permit the erection of a digital advertising sign on a Brisbane heritage hotel 42 Court sets aside a decision of the Building and Development Committee on the basis that its chairperson was not an architect 44 Court sets aside a decision of the Building and Development Committee on the basis of improper constitution and consideration of irrelevant matters 46 Court considers the relevance and reasonableness of conditions as well as in what circumstances conditions are required 48 Current and future infrastructure planning and charging frameworks in Queensland 50 The court has a discretion to grant an order for costs when an application is brought without a reasonable prospect of success 60 Court of Appeal upholds a valuation of $4.1 million for a compulsory acquisition of land 61 Queensland's environmental laws prevail over Commonwealth Corporations Act 64 The court ordered the recovery of some but not all costs in respect of proceedings for enforcement orders 66 Queensland parliament passes amendments to address the issues arising out of the decisions of a private certifier 68 Powers of entry for environmental investigations and procedural fairness 71 Proposed change to a development approval by adding roller doors in front of the car parking spaces was accepted as permissible change 73 LEGAL KNOWLEDGE MATTERS JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2017 | i Contents (cont'd) Court found permissible change request made to incorrect entity 76 Proposed changes to a development application for commercial groundwater extraction were found to be permissible changes 78 Short-term demand for proposed hard rock quarry insufficient to justify approval despite serious, significant and other conflicts with the relevant planning schemes 80 Court finds significant conflicts with Planning Scheme and that private economics are not sufficient grounds to approve development despite the conflicts 82 There were sufficient grounds to approve the proposed development at the former ABC site despite conflict with the Brisbane City Plan 2014 85 Competitive regions – South East Queensland 87 The court approves a permissible change application 90 A substantial change to a development application does not necessarily result in a substantially different development 92 Reduction in intensity does not result in a substantially different development 94 Court declares changes to a development application are a minor change 96 Court upholds the decision of the Council to refuse a development permit for the demolition of a pre-1911 federation era house 97 Court finds insufficient grounds to support the demolition of a character house given conflicts with relevant planning scheme 99 Court upholds the decision of the Council to refuse a commercial centre on the basis of conflicts with the centre hierarchy and zoning of the planning scheme 101 Court found that the costs to repair a pre-1947 property were reasonable in circumstances where they amounted to 15% of the "as is" value of the property 104 Court allows the reconfiguring of rural land to further fragment good quality agricultural land 107 Noosa Shire Council's long-term strategic vision for the Shire Business Centre preserved by the Planning and Environment Court 109 Court upholds the decision of the council to refuse a development for a warehouse in a low-density residential zone 111 Local governments can change the form of infrastructure after approving a conversion application 113 The UK High Court gives an example of what would be a relevant matter for an impact assessable development application in Queensland 116 Development application for a synagogue refused due to inadequate security assessment of a terrorist threat 118 Planning and Environment Court finds no reasonable requirement for imposing conditions on a development approval 121 Planning and Environment Court considers the reasonableness and relevance of conditions imposed upon a quarry 124 Land Court dismisses an appeal on the basis of inadequate evidence and a valuation based on a false assumption 126 Land Court dismisses appeal concerning valuation of land 128 Land Court dismisses application for costs after determining conduct did not bear the hallmarks of frivolity or vexatiousness 130 Valuation expert values the wrong thing yet the court still finds value in the evidence 132 Waste industry in the spotlight: How are waste operators in NSW regulated? 135 ii | PLANNING GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT Contents (cont'd) No Council resolution required to incorporate other information into rating categories 138 Federal Court dismisses challenge to the Environment Minister's decision to approve Carmichael Coal Mine 140 Adani's coal export terminal at Abbot Point to progress after unsuccessful challenge to the environmental authority 142 Supreme Court finds that the usual rules as to costs applies despite the public interest character of the proceeding 145 Planning and Environment Court refuses to join Queensland Rail as a party to an appeal concerning a condition requiring works on land leased by Queensland Rail 147 Planning and Environment Court awards costs against the council following an unsuccessful joinder application 149 Costs ordered in circumstances where an appeal was neither frivolous nor vexatious, however the appellant's conduct caused the Valuer-General unreasonable trouble and expense 150 Land Court of Queensland refuses to strike out one claim for compensation but prevents another after finding an estoppel 152 Court of Appeal dismisses claims of procedural unfairness and upholds validity of Environmental Protection Order 154 Lapsed development approval revived where applicant misunderstood effect of related approvals 156 Planning and Environment