The bills focus on changes to Queensland's planning regime
that were foreshadowed in the Better Planning for Queensland
Directions Paper – Next Steps for Planning Reform, which
was released in May 2015.
Norton Rose Fulbright has a market leading planning practice and
we would be happy to discuss with you the implications of the
proposed changes for your business and assist you with making a
Some key changes
While the Draft Bills do not propose to alter the fundamental
way Queensland's planning system currently operates, some
noteworthy changes are proposed. These changes include:
Reducing the number of state planning
instruments. It is proposed that the number of state
planning instruments be reduced from four to two. The State
Planning Regulatory Provisions and the Queensland Planning
Provisions are to be rolled into the Planning Regulation
2016, leaving the State Planning Policy and Regional Plans as
the only 'state planning instruments' under the
Planning Bill 2015.
Changes to the types of development assessment and the
categories of development assessment. Under the draft
Planning Bill 2015 development is to be categorised as
accepted, assessable and prohibited. Assessable development is to
be further classified as standard/code assessable or merit/impact
assessable. 'Exemption certificates' are also proposed to
The introduction of additional supporting legislation
and instruments. It is proposed that the Draft Bills will
be supported by the Development Assessment Rules, the Planning
Regulation 2016, the Minister's Rules and
Guidelines for Making or Amending Local Planning Instruments,
the Infrastructure Designation: Statutory Guideline for Local
Government. All of these documents will serve a fairly
self-evident purpose with the Development Assessment Rules
essentially being the current Chapter 6 (Integrated Development
Assessment System) of the Sustainable Planning Act
Removal of the term 'permissible
change'. Under the Draft Bills the term 'minor
change' now applies to both changes to development applications
and development approvals. However the term takes on a slightly
different meaning depending on the circumstances. The Draft Bills
also provide scope for approvals to be changed if the change is not
Establishment of the Development Tribunal. The
Building and Development Dispute Resolution Committee is to be
replaced by the Development Tribunal. The Draft Bills establish the
jurisdiction of the Development Tribunal and Planning and
Environment Court and set out how appeals are commenced in each.
The concept of a 'non-appealable' decision is also
Restricting the discretionary factors relevant to the
awarding of costs in the Planning and Environment Court.
The current discretionary cost provisions of the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009 are to be restricted and it is proposed that
the concept of each party bearing their own costs in Planning and
Environment Court litigation be reintroduced.
The specific areas in which the Government is seeking feedback
the advancing of the Draft Bills' purpose;
local government compensation arrangements in relation to
the terms to be used when classifying development;
the decision rules related to standard/code assessment;
The Draft Bills are in a very early form and we will be watching
with great interest how this new legislation evolves between now
and when it is due to commence in late 2016.
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.
The High Court of Australia has granted special leave to appeal a decision of the NSWCA that upheld an adjudication determination under the NSW 1999.
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”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).