The concept of amenity is generally enshrined in the relevant planning scheme. An application that proposes development which would have negative amenity impacts may be refused, or an approval successfully appealed, if the amenity impacts cannot be sufficiently ameliorated.
Even though it is nearly 30 years old, the decision of Broad v Brisbane City Council & Anor [1986] 2 Qd R 317 remains the touchstone for the concept of amenity. The most recent cases of the Planning and Environment Court continue to refer to the principles set down in Broad, along with other principles which have since developed.
As a quick guide, the Courts have noted that:
- The concept of amenity is wide and flexible.
- The amenity of a locality and reasonable expectations of residents are informed by the planning scheme and the uses permitted under planning controls.
- Amenity is comprised of tangible (e.g. traffic, noise, dust, odour and light) and intangible (e.g. reasonable expectations of a neighbourhood) aspects.
- Subjective perceptions of residents are a relevant factor to take into account in assessing reasonable expectations. However, subjective perceptions must be capable of rational justification (that is, likely to be held by an ordinary person in a locality) and are given more weight when supported by objective and observable evidence about likely impacts.
- People living in a locality do not have a monopoly on expectations.
- Developers are also entitled to rely on reasonable expectations drawn from the planning documents.
Award-winning law firm HopgoodGanim offers commercially-focused advice, coupled with reliable and responsive service, to clients throughout Australia and across international borders.
2015 AFR Beaton Client Choice Awards:
Best Law Firm (revenue $50m - $200m)
Best Professional Services Firm (revenue $50m - $200m)
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.
