Australia: The Cs (or keys) to extending the life of a development approval - 7 October 2015

Requests to extend the relevant period for development approvals are on the rise. Consistency, contemporariness, changes in surrounding land ownership, community awareness, challenges identified in public notice submissions and concurrence agency views are the keys to whether a request to extend a development approval will be granted.

In this alert, Partner James Ireland and Associate Olivia Williamson examine judgments from the Planning and Environment Court to distil the essential considerations for successfully extending the life of a development approval.

Take Home Points

  • The matters referred to in section 388 of SPA are simply matters for consideration. They are not preconditions and none of the stated considerations prevail over another.
  • Inability to comply with one of the criteria, for instance if evidence indicates that a person would make a submission if opportunity allowed, does not mandate refusal of the request.
  • Whether or not the relevant period of a development approval will be extended is the discretion of the decision maker and favourable exercise of the discretion will depend on the circumstances of each case having regard to the specified considerations.
  • The older a development approval becomes, the less it is likely to conform with current laws and policies, however attempts should not be made to draw a numerical line in the sand based on the age of a development approval.
  • Consistency with the current laws and policies may not necessarily have decisive weight, however it may be regarded as particularly significant in establishing reasonable expectations which is relevant to informing the considerations of community awareness and potential submission rights.
  • Current community awareness, the potential availability of public submission rights and the likelihood of their exercise may become weightier considerations where there is significant inconsistency between the approval and current planning laws and policies.
  • Existing case law is likely to provide guidance into the future based on the current drafting of section 85 in the consultation draft Planning Bill 2015 released in September 2015.

Any application to extend the relevant period for a development approval must be made before the development approval lapses.1

In deciding such a request, section 388 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) provides that the assessment manager (or the Court on appeal) must only have regard to:

  • The consistency of the approval, including its conditions, with the current laws and policies applying to the development including, for example, the amount and type of infrastructure contributions, or charges payable under Chapter 8, Parts 2 and 3; and
  • The community's current awareness of the development approval; and
  • Whether, if the request were refused:
    • Further rights to make a submission may be available for a further development application; and
    • The likely extent to which those rights may be exercise; and
  • The view of any concurrence agency for the approval given under section 385.

Section 85 of the consultation draft Planning Bill 2015 released in September 2015 is proposed to be the successor of section 388 of the SPA. Section 85 provides that "when assessing an extension application, the assessment manager may consider any relevant matter whether or not the matter was relevant to assessing the development application." In our view, relevant matters are likely to include the matters currently detailed in section 388 of the SPA.

Case Law

Section 388 of the SPA, and its predecessor 3.5.23 of Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), has not generated much discussion by the Court. There are only a handful of reasons handed down by the Planning and Environment Court in the context of an appeal with respect to a local government's refusal of a request to extend the relevant period for a development approval.

These cases helpfully provide guidance with respect to the interpretation of the considerations set out in section 388. To set the context for our analysis, below is a brief outline of the facts and conclusions reached in four of the decisions.

Ardmore Holdings Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2008] QPEC 115

In February 1990 the Brisbane City Council granted a development permit for a three storey apartment building (containing eight units) on land at Highgate Hill. The proposal was advertised to the public in 1989 and one objection was received from a nearby resident.

In May 1999, Council approved some modifications to the plans to reduce the number of units from eight to three, although the building scale and bulk remained the same as the earlier approval.

Between May 1999 and 2005 Council agreed to two further extensions to the approval, taking the relevant period of the approval to December 2006. An application for a third extension was made and refused by the Council in September 2006. Council opposed the further extension of time (and the subsequent appeal) on four grounds, namely:

  • The GFA exceeded the site area contained in Brisbane City Plan 2000 and the building was not otherwise consistent with other buildings in the locality, in terms of scale and bulk;
  • The building exceeded the number of storeys contemplated in Brisbane City Plan 2000 for the locality;
  • The development is contrary to the Desired Environmental Outcome for the low-medium density residential area in City Plan 2000; and
  • There had been a significant change in ownership of the properties around the subject site since public advertising in November 1989.

Although this case was decided on the basis of section 3.5.23 of the IPA, the requirements for deciding the request are in similar terms to section 388 of the SPA (save that section 3.5.23 did not include a consideration of the view of any concurrence agency for the approval).

In dismissing the appeal (and refusing the extension), two factors were most important:

  1. 19 years had passed since the last notification of the proposal to members of the public. The Court accepted that there had been many changes of ownership of properties in the surrounding area and because several people said they would oppose the development if they had the chance to do so, it should be accepted that the time had come for it to be notified again to members of the public.
  2. The previous approval was not consistent with the current laws and policies which applied to the development, including City Plan 2000 and that inconsistency included the failure to comply with the performance criteria not just in insignificant details.

Cleveland Power Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council [2013] QPEC 9

Following a submitter appeal, the Court granted a development approval to the Appellant to develop land at Mount Cotton with a bio-mass power plant. The relevant period for the development approval was four years. Over 300 submissions were made during public notification of the development application.

In November 2011, the Appellant lodged a request to extend the relevant period of the development approval which was refused by the Council.

In considering section 388 the Court made the following observations:

  1. Section 388(1) of the SPA does not contemplate that any one of the four considerations prevails over the others and it does not contemplate that a failure to comply with one of the criteria mandates refusal.
  2. It was particularly significant that the development approval was consistent with current laws and policies. This consistency is important because it founds a reasonable expectation on the part of the public that development of the kind approved may occur in the area.
  3. The Appellant and the Court accepted that members of the public had "maintained a rage" against the proposal and that if the request was refused, members of the public would exercise rights to make a submission in respect of a further development application.
  4. There would be little utility in forcing the Appellant to undergo an extensive impact assessment process for the purpose of obtaining a development approval that would be, for all intents and purposes, consistent with the existing development approval and which would be unlikely to provoke a public submission that would raise any new issue for consideration.

Ultimately the Court was prepared to extend the relevant period of the development approval for a further two years.

Langton and Anor v Douglas Shire Council [2014] QPEC 71

The development approval the subject of the request was dated 18 June 2010 and authorised a material change of use for four multiple dwellings (tourist) on land at Port Douglas. The relevant period for the development approval was four years and the request sought a further four years. The original development application was publicly notified and one submission was received from an adjoining owner.

The development application was assessed against the 1996 Douglas Shire Planning Scheme. Under that scheme, the land was located within the Residential B Zone and the Medium Density Tourist Accommodation Area of the Development Control Plan.

In 2006 a new planning scheme came into force. Under the new scheme, the land was included in the Residential 1 Planning Area of the Port Douglas and Environs Locality. The development fell within the definition of "holiday accommodation" in the new scheme and this was impact assessable (inconsistent) under the new scheme.

In dismissing the appeal (and refusing the requests), the Court had regard to:

  1. The "significant shift" in how the land was treated in the 2006 planning scheme compared to the 1996 planning scheme, including with respect to desired environmental outcomes, maximum plot ratio and access requirements.
  2. The approval was not consistent with the underlying planning strategy for the land in the new scheme which seeks less intensive residential development and discourages Holiday Accommodation.
  3. The extent of the inconsistency with the new scheme was enough to dismiss the appeal on that ground alone.
  4. The submitter still owned the adjoining land and the Court was of the view that if the appeal was dismissed and the proposed development assessed under the current planning controls that submitter would exercise his right to make a submission and other persons may also exercise rights to make a submission.

Mantle v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2015] QPEC 30

This decision concerned a request to extend the relevant period of a development approval for a tourist accommodation facility on the shores of Lake Weyba. The development approval was granted by the Court in August 2004 (after the resolution of two submitter appeals) with a four year relevant period. The relevant period of the approval was extended by the Court in June 2010 and the appellant sought a further extension.

The development application was publicly advertised in 1999 and seven submissions were received, two of which supported approval.

Council's grounds for refusing the request made reference to a letter from "Friends of Lake Weyba" which stated that if the proposal was placed before the community for comment, Friends of Lake Weyba (and possibly others) would make a submission.

In relation to consistency with current laws and policy:

  1. The development approval was changed by the Court in August 2014. A number of conditions relating to acid sulphate soil, koalas and koala habitat trees, bushfire management and native acid frog habitats were replaced to address contemporary standards and controls.
  2. The previous extension of the relevant period was granted during the currency of Maroochy Plan 2000 and the second request was also made during the currency of Maroochy Plan 2000. The Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014 commenced in May 2014.
  3. Expert evidence was presented to the Court addressing the issue of consistency between Maroochy Plan 2000 and Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014.
  4. The Court was ultimately satisfied on the material that there were no material differences between mapping or Code requirements and the conditions of approval appropriately respond to the requirements of the Codes and provide flexibility to adjust the development at the detailed design stage.

In relation to the community's awareness of the development approval, the Court considered that:

  1. Lake Weyba is an important feature and its environment is likely to be of general interest within the region, beyond simply those who live nearby.
  2. Despite changes in ownership the broader locality since 1999, there is likely to be a reasonable level of knowledge of the approval.
  3. In December 2012 a different development application was made in respect of the subject land. That development application is the subject of an appeal in the Court.
  4. The likelihood of public submissions being exercised if the proposal were to be subject of a fresh development application could not be discounted. That however, does not preclude a grant of the requested extension.
  5. The issues which were the subject of the submissions to the original development proposal were largely addressed by the changes to the approval made in 2014 aimed at addressing contemporary standards and controls.

Ultimately, the Court was prepared to grant the requested extension to the changed development approval. In doing so however, the Court confirmed that it would not have been inclined to grant the request in relation to the unchanged development approval. In reaching this conclusion the Court cautioned that a developer ought not to "endlessly luxuriate in an approval, without acting upon it, on the assumption that it will be extended subject only to the updating of conditions."


The cases confirm that the matters referred to in section 388 of SPA are simply matters for consideration. They are not preconditions and none of the stated considerations prevail over another. The outcome is in the discretion of the decision maker and whether or not the discretion will be exercised favourably will depend on the circumstances of each case having regard to the specified considerations.

Consistency between the approval and current planning laws or policies is important but will not necessarily have decisive weight.

Consistency however is the primary source of reasonable expectations and as such informs other considerations, namely, community awareness and potential submission rights. Where there is significant inconsistency, current community awareness and potential submission rights may become weightier considerations.


1Section 383 of the SPA

© HopgoodGanim Lawyers

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.

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

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

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 Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.