Proceedings concerning the appeal against a refusal of a development application for an integrated lifestyle retirement facility in the Rural zone. The case involved the appellant, Boyneglade Property Developments Pty Ltd (Boyneglade), and eighteen respondents including the Gladstone Regional Council and several individuals.

Pursuant to s 45 of the Planning Act 2016 (“PA”) the proposed development was impact assessable and should be assessed based on the relevant assessment benchmarks in the planning scheme and any other relevant circumstances. The Court had wide discretion when determining an appeal about a development application under s 60 of the PA.

The respondent argued that the proposed development was in conflict with various provisions of the planning scheme, including that it was not appropriately integrated into existing or future transport infrastructure networks or convenient access to facilities and services. Furthermore, it was argued that the non-compliance with the planning scheme would be in conflict with the result that, where there is not a sufficient need for the proposed development in the Rural zone, it should be refused [23].

The appellant argued there was a community, economic and planning need for the proposed development and it was consistent with rural uses, while achieving the purpose of the PA [24].

The Court held that the appellant failed to show a planning, community or economic need for the proposed development. The Court held that the proposed development was inconsistent with the planning scheme and public interest for the future development of the area. The appeal was dismissed.

Tim Stork (with M J Batty) appeared for the respondent, instructed by Evans Planning Law.

The judgment is published here.