In GTH Project No. 4 Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council & Ors [2024] QPEC 26, the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, presided over by Judge Kefford, addressed an appeal concerning the refusal of a development application by Noosa Shire Council. The appellant, GTH Project No. 4 Pty Ltd, sought approval for a seniors’ living community and a new golf course clubhouse, including the reconfiguration of lots to facilitate these developments on a 38.1654-hectare land parcel in Cooroy.
The court considered various issues:
Appropriate Location: The proposed development was scrutinized regarding its compliance with the urban growth boundaries as articulated in the relevant planning schemes, which sought to confine urban development within these boundaries to maintain the town's character and environmental values. The court found that the proposed seniors’ living community did not comply with these strategies, as it was located outside the urban growth boundary.
Compatibility and Impact: Consideration was given to whether the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding area, focusing on built form, density, visual amenity, and character impacts. The court concluded that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the locality, particularly due to the required dense vegetative buffer which would alter the existing rural and scenic character of the area.
Water Quality: The potential impact on the water quality of Lake Macdonald was a significant concern, given the site’s location within the water catchment area. The court determined that the proposed development posed a risk to water quality that was inconsistent with good water catchment management and planning principles.
Need: The appellant’s argument that there was a strong need for the proposed seniors’ living community was evaluated. The court acknowledged a need for residential accommodation for seniors but was not persuaded that the need was so pressing or unique to this proposal to override other significant planning considerations.
Reconfiguration of Lots: The proposed reconfiguration of lots was found to be intrinsically linked to the intended use of the land for the seniors’ living community, which the court had already found inappropriate. Moreover, potential adverse effects on the natural environment due to necessary earthworks and water treatment infrastructure were noted.
Overall, the Planning and Environment Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the importance of adhering to established planning strategies concerning urban growth boundaries, protecting local character, and ensuring water quality in the Lake Macdonald catchment area.