Australia: Queensland Planning and Environment Court provides guidance on when historical development approval conditions attach to land

A key, but often overlooked, legal issue in Queensland's development assessment regime is the extent to which the conditions of a development approval will attach to and bind land – even when a later development approval is obtained for different development.

For example, if an approval for a large residential development requires an area of land to be preserved for conservation purposes, and, years later, the developer obtains a further development approval which allows the conservation area to be developed, can the developer develop the conservation area, or do the earlier conservation conditions linger on?

As explained below, although this issue is of fundamental importance, there is no clear answer.

On 16 September 2016, the Planning and Environment Court delivered judgment in the case of Steendyk v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 47 (Steendyk).

While this case provides some much-needed guidance as to the relevant legal principles, it has not entirely resolved the issue.

THE LEGAL CONTEXT

Under Queensland's planning legislation, it is clear that a development approval attaches to land and binds occupiers, owners and successors in title.

However, the legislation does not clearly address whether, or to what extent, the conditions of an approval will regulate future development, such as where:

  • as in the example above, a developer obtains a later approval for different development that is inconsistent with the conditions of the earlier development approval; or
  • the planning regime itself changes, such that development that would breach the conditions of an earlier approval can be carried out "as of right" (ie without approval).

On one view (referred to below as the "broad" view), because a development approval attaches to land, its conditions remain binding even where development is later undertaken under a different approval (or "as of right"), unless and until the conditions of the earlier development approval are amended or (in some circumstances) the earlier approval is cancelled. The broad view is reflected in cases such as:

  • KCY Investments (No. 2) Pty Ltd v Redland City Council,1 in which an earlier approval included a condition requiring certain land to be protected for environmental reasons. The Court upheld a condition imposed on a later approval that prohibited the developer from commencing the new development under that later approval until the conditions of the earlier approval had been amended; and
  • Peet Flagstone City Pty Ltd v Logan City Council,2 in which the Court held that certain vegetation clearing, which was able to be carried out "as of right" due to a change in the planning regime, was unlawful because it breached a condition of an earlier approval that had required the vegetation to be preserved (as part of an approval to clear other vegetation).

However, the alternative view (referred to below as the "narrow " view) is that a development approval's conditions only regulate the specific development approved by that approval. The basis for this view is that because the purpose of an approval is to authorise development (subject to any conditions), the conditions only apply to the relevant authorised development.

An example of the narrow view is Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council,3 in which a hotel had originally been approved subject to a condition that, effectively, prohibited it from having more than 5 poker machines. The developer later obtained a further approval allowing 25 machines. This approval was upheld as valid, on the basis that it was for a "different" development, such that the original approval did not apply.

The question of which of these views is correct has significant practical implications.

  • If the broad view is correct, then, generally, the only means of freeing land from conditions of an earlier approval is by amending the earlier approval. This is because Queensland's planning legislation does not allow an approval to be cancelled unless development under that approval never commenced.
  • However, the legislation also restricts the types of amendments that can be made, by only allowing what are termed "permissible changes". For example, a change will not be a permissible change if it results in "substantially different development" or, where the application which led to the approval required public notification, if the change would be likely to provoke a submission objecting to the change.

    This means that, in many cases, it will not be possible to either cancel the approval or amend its conditions via a permissible change. If neither cancellation nor amendment is available, then the outcome is that the conditions remain locked in place for perpetuity, potentially sterilising the development potential of land.

  • However, if the narrow view is correct, it means that a developer could potentially use a later approval to circumvent their obligations arising under earlier approval conditions. In the Peet Flagstone case, it was observed that conditions are the "community price" that a developer must pay for taking the benefit of a development approval. The second view could enable a developer to ultimately avoid paying that "community price".
  • For example, it is not unusual for community members to appeal controversial development approvals to the Court. Often, those appeals are resolved by the developer agreeing to accept certain conditions as a "trade-off" for being able to commence development without having to fight the appeal. The narrow view could allow the developer to take the benefit of this trade-off and then, some years later, obtain a further approval that undermines the agreed conditions.

STEENDYK V BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL: THE KEY FACTS

In 2002, a development approval was granted by the Court (in the context of an appeal by a neighbouring landowner who had objected to the development application) for various extensions to a dwelling house. That approval included conditions requiring privacy screens to be installed and maintained on all verandahs.

In 2010, a subsequent approval was granted by the local government for further works to the house. That 2010 approval did not affect the privacy screens required by the 2002 approval, and so the neighbouring landowner made no further objection.

However, in 2014, the owner of the house obtained an amendment to the 2010 approval (via the "permissible change" process) which approved part of a verandah being enclosed, with moveable louvres being installed, in place of privacy screens.

The neighbour objected to this, because, when the louvres were opened, they allowed residents of the house vision of parts of his property, including into bedrooms. Accordingly, the neighbour commenced proceedings challenging the Council's 2014 decision, including because of its inconsistency with the 2002 approval.

STEENDYK V BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL: THE COURT'S DECISION

The Court held that the 2014 change was valid, and could be lawfully relied upon, despite being inconsistent with the conditions of the 2002 approval.

In doing so, the Court endorsed the narrow view, stating that, when a development approval attaches to land, what in fact "attaches" is the right to carry out development under that approval, subject to its conditions. On that basis, the Court concluded that where a subsequent approval grants different development rights, those rights are not restricted by the earlier approval.

Given this, the Court held that the 2010 approval, as amended in 2014, related to a "different" development from that approved in 2002, such that the rights under the 2014 approval were not affected by the 2002 conditions.

Even though the 2002 conditions required the privacy screens to be both "constructed and maintained", the Court emphasised that the purpose of the planning legislation is to regulate development, rather than to "restrict or stifle development unduly and unreasonably". Given this, the Court considered that the obligation to maintain the screens only applied to the original development as approved in 2002, and was not an obligation to retain those screens indefinitely.

ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS

The Court's decision in Steendyk appears to unequivocally endorse the narrow view. However, on closer analysis, there remains significant uncertainty as to which of the broad or narrow views is correct.

In the first instance, this is because the Peet Flagstone referenced above is a decision of the Court of Appeal, rather than the Planning and Environment Court, and so is more authoritative. This means that, in any future case, it will be necessary to reconcile the two decisions.

In Steendyk, the Court appears to have attempted to partly reconcile the decisions by stating that Peet Flagstone and similar cases:

"are authority for the proposition that a developer who takes the benefit of a development approval cannot avoid the concomitant burdens of that approval, in the form of conditions which continue to apply, once the approved development has been carried out. But of course [...] if the benefit is not relied on – because the rights conferred by the approval are abandoned – there is no concomitant burden".

However, the question remains as to when it can be said that the benefit of an approval is "not relied on". In Peet Flagstone, for example, the benefit had already been relied on some years earlier, when clearing was originally undertaken.

Similarly, in Steendyk, the 2002 approval had also been "relied on", in carrying out the original extensions. It appears that, for this reason, the Court ultimately decided that rather than the 2002 approval having been "abandoned" (despite using that term in the quote above), the 2002 approval had "simply finished the work it was required to do".

However, on this approach, it is unclear why, in Peet Flagstone, the Court of Appeal clearly did not consider that the earlier approval had "finished its work", despite clearing under that approval having finished some years earlier.

Given this, while the Steendyk decision provides much-needed guidance on the relevant principles, it ultimately does not resolve the underlying issue.

For both developers and assessing authorities, there remains significant uncertainty as to the ongoing effect of conditions.

In practical terms, the issue will be resolved somewhat by the new Planning Act 2016 (Qld), due to take effect in mid-2017, which will allow approvals to be changed in circumstances that would not currently meet the definition of a "permissible change". This means that, even if the legal issue remains unresolved, its potentially significant practical implications can be avoided.

In the meantime, or until the legal issue is otherwise resolved by the Court of Appeal, both developers and local governments should exercise caution in situations involving historical approvals.

Footnotes

1 [2012] QPELR 436.

2 [2015] QPELR 68

3 (2002) 121 LGERA 197.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Chambers Asia Pacific Awards 2016 Winner – Australia
Client Service Award
Employer of Choice for Gender Equality (WGEA)

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions