Australia: Understanding the Gerhardt Cases and their implications for developers

Last Updated: 28 October 2016
Article by David Nicholls

There have been five decisions of the Planning and Environment Court and the Queensland Court of Appeal involving a private certifier, Mr Gerhardt, which has caused a flurry of activity over recent months with the State Government actively considering legislative changes to attempt to deal with problems exposed by the Courts' decisions. This article provides an analysis of the more recent decisions and examines the potential legislative responses.

Some relevant background

At the outset, it is worth explaining the issue which is at the heart of the litigation. It concerns the distinction between building work and material change of use, and the proper roles of private certifiers and local Governments in relation to the former.

The issue has been brought into sharp focus in Brisbane in the context of traditional building character overlays which impose restrictions on the alteration or demolition of pre-1947 houses in various parts of the city. An explanation of the operation of these restrictions provides some relevant background which will assist in explaining the Brisbane City Council's concern arising from the earlier judgments, and the need for the State Government to consider amending the legislation.

Ordinarily when an owner wished to re-develop land containing a pre-1947 dwelling within the traditional building character overlay, an application would have been made to the Council for a preliminary approval to demolish the house. Such an application would be assessed against the Traditional Building Character (demolition) Overlay Code. Conflict with that code would arise, usually resulting in refusal of the application, if performance outcome PO5 of the code was not satisfied. PO5 is in the following terms:

"Development involves a building which:

  • Does not represent traditional building character; or
  • Is not capable of structural repair; or
  • Does not contribute positively to the character of the street."

The recently settled approach of the Planning and Environment Court to PO5 (c) is to consider the whole of a street rather than the parts of it that are made up of pre-1947 dwellings, and to assess the character of the street as a whole1 . A pre-1947 dwelling may contribute positively to the character of a street where that character is mixed. Visual character has to be a significantly prominent modern one, excluding any realistic co-existing character, in order to eliminate the possibility of a positive contribution by a pre-1947 house2 . Thus PO5(c), as interpreted by the Court, sets the bar rather high.

The strength of the controls in place for regulating the demolition of character houses underscores the Council's concern about demolition that has recently been approved without any assessment by the Council against the demolition code.

Alterations to a character house are assessed against the Traditional Building Character (design) Overlay Code. This code requires a pre-1947 house to be retained in its original setting and to compliment other nearby pre-1947 houses on the same street.

Summary of the Gerhardt Series of Cases

The following is a thumbnail sketch of the Gerhardt litigation to date.

Gerhard v Brisbane City Council (2015) QPEC 34 July 2015 (Gerhardt No. 1). The development involved construction of a carport entry, alterations and changes to the external façade of a character house. The application was referred by the certifier to the Brisbane City Council as a concurrence agency. The Council refused to respond and insisted that the proponent make a development application for a preliminary approval for building work to be assessed against the planning scheme. The Court declared that no such application was necessary and that the certifier was at liberty to approve the development as if there were no concurrence agency requirements, because the Council had failed to give a concurrence agency a response within the time required under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). The key finding in this case was that the approach that had been taken by the Council of requiring an application for a preliminary approval for building work for alterations to a character house was not valid.

Brisbane City Council v Gerhardt (2016) QCA 76, April 2016 (Gerhardt No. 2). The Queensland Court of Appeal upheld the Planning and Environment Court's decision in Gerhardt No. 1. The Court confirmed that when section 83 of the Building Act 1975 (BA) refers to a "necessary" preliminary approval, it means one for which there is a necessity under the SPA. The SPA says that a person may apply for a preliminary approval but it is not necessary to do so. In effect, section 83(1)(b) of the BA operates when a preliminary approval has been applied for, but it does not mean that it is necessary to obtain one. In those circumstances the preliminary approval must be effective for the assessment of the building work against the planning scheme before the certifier decides the building application. However, if no application for a preliminary approval has been made, the certifier may proceed to determine the building application.

Gerhardt v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2016) QCA 136, May 2016 (Gerhardt No. 3). In August 2013 the Queensland Building & Construction Commission (QBCC) decided that the certifier had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct contrary to section 83(1)(b) of the BA which is the same section that was central to the decisions in Gerhardt No's 1 and 2. The building and work involved relocating a pre-1947 house on a double block of land at Annerley, reconfiguring two lots and building two multi-unit dwellings at the rear. The certifier did not assess the work against the relevant town planning requirements. A member of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) set aside the QBCC's decision. This was reversed on appeal by the QCAT Appeal Tribunal. The Court of Appeal upheld the Appeal Tribunal's decision. The Court of Appeal's decision is relevant because it confirmed the earlier approach of the Court of Appeal in Gerhardt No 2 and of the Planning and Environment Court as Gerhardt No 1 as to whether the Council is a concurrency agency for a building application. In this appeal, the certifier argued that the Council was not a concurrency agency for the application on the basis that the Council did not, in terms of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, Schedule 7, Table 1, Item 17, "by resolution, or in its planning scheme declare" the building work for a building or structure is in a locality and of a form that may have an extremely adverse effect on amenity or be in extreme conflict with the character of the locality.

The Court of Appeal held that while there was no declaration by the Council per se, the provisions of the planning scheme provided the necessary "declaration" in terms of their intent and operation. Therefore the certifier should have given the Council the opportunity to assess the work. The Court of Appeal also confirmed that section 83(1)(b) of the BA does not require a preliminary approval to be obtained from Council for building work. In this respect, the Court of Appeal found that an error had been made by the QCAT Appeal Tribunal but, in the end, it was not material to the outcome of the appeal which upheld the original decision of the QBCC that the certifier had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct.

Gerhardt v McNeil (2016) QCA 2007, August 2016 (Gerhardt No 4). In relation to the certifier's actions with respect to the development of the Annerley house, the Council brought prosecution proceedings in the Magistrates Court resulting in convictions being recorded and a fine being imposed. An appeal by the certifier to the District Court against the conviction was dismissed. Following the Court of Appeal delivering its judgments in Gerhardt No 2 and No 3, the certifier applied to extend the time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the convictions.

The Court of Appeal granted leave and set aside the convictions because they had been recorded on the basis that an effective preliminary approval for building work was required before the certifier could approve the building work, whereas the Court of Appeal had decided otherwise, and it was undesirable for the conflicting decisions to stand.

Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council (2016) QPEC 48, September 2016 (Gerhardt No 5). This case involved an application to the certifier for a development permit for building work being the demolition of two pre-1947 houses at Morningside. The certifier argued that the Council was a concurrency agency with jurisdiction to assess the planning aspects while the Council asserted that a separate application for a development approval was required. The certifier sought declarations that no separate development application to the Council was needed.

This case raised similar questions to those in Gerhardt No 1 and at first sight appeared to involve re-consideration of the same questions that had already been decided by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Gerhardt No 2 and No 3. The position was different however because Gerhardt No 1 and No 2 involved physical building work ie construction of additions and alterations, whereas this case involved demolition, and under City Plan 2014 the "building assessment provisions" identified in table 1.6.1 do not include the traditional building character (demolition) overlay code. Rather the building assessment provisions only encompass the Traditional Building Character (design) Overlay Code. It followed that the certifier had no role in assessment of the application against the demolition code. There would have to be a separate assessment manager, namely the local government, with respect to the demolition component that was required to be assessed against the planning scheme.

The Planning and Environment Court considered the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Gerhardt No 3 to be distinguishable. The court took the view that to "declare" something in a planning scheme requires a formal express statement and cannot merely be implied from the purpose, intent or subject matter of the demolition code.

City Plan 2014 contains an express declaration in section 1.7.4 in the terms contemplated by Item 17 (b) of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, but it only has effect with respect to the Traditional Building Character (Design) Overlay code. The result was that in this instance, the Brisbane City Council was a concurrence agency for the application and the application should have been referred to it by the certifier.

Overall outcome of the Gerhardt Cases

The outcome of Gerhardt No 5 was that the certifier's application for declarations was dismissed. The certifier's approval of the building (demolition) work remained valid but the Court's reasons make it clear that the owner of the land cannot implement that approval without also obtaining a preliminary approval for building work (demolition) assessed against the planning scheme. In consequence there is now a dichotomy between applications for construction work in relation to a character house, where the Council is a concurrence agency, and demolition of a character house, where it is not.

It is understood that Mr Gerhardt has filed an application for leave to appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal against the Planning and Environment Court's decision in Gerhardt No 5.

Where to from here?

The Gerhardt series of cases highlights the difficulties inherent in trying to regulate "building work" through planning schemes. This has come to the fore in recent times in several contexts but more particularly in relation to character housing and local heritage.

Obviously there needs to be a clear pathway for development that does not involve material change of use to be assessed against the relevant aspects of the planning schemes, but care needs to be exercised to avoid over complicating the development assessment system.

The fundamental objectives of any legislative reform should be:

  • Assessment should be undertaken by the most appropriately qualified assessment manager.
  • There should be clear demarcation of responsibility and accountability for each aspect of the building work.
  • Assessment of each aspect of the building work should be able to happen concurrently, while not resulting in an exercisable approval of the building aspects, without independent or concurrent approval of the planning aspects of the building work.

Because the scope of the assessment of the planning aspects of building work is relatively narrow, involving technical assessment against the relevant overlay code, there should be no need to subject it to impact assessment. Consequently the possibility of opening up such building work to impact assessment ought not influence the approach to be taken to finding the legislative solution.

The following pathways appear to be available:

  • One application may be made to the local government for both the planning and building aspects of the work. Under the SPA the local government currently has authority to undertake a complete assessment of such an application3;
  • Applications could be made separately to the local government and a private certifier for assessment of the planning and building aspects respectively;
  • An application could be made to a certifier for both aspects, but the certifier may only assess the building aspects and must refer the planning aspects to the local government as a concurrence agency, and await a decision before granting the building approval.

Appropriate limits need to be maintained through the regulations around the nature and extent of the aspects of building work that may be regulated through a planning scheme. Such regulation should only occur for legitimate planning purposes. There should be a clear distinction, by way of the terminology used, between the building and planning assessment aspects of building work. The former should be the subject of a building development application under the BA however the latter may be the subject of either a separate application for a development approval for building work, for example, "building work (character assessment)", which is assessed and decided under the planning scheme. Alternatively it may be the subject of concurrence agency assessment by the local government for the same purpose.

It does not seem to matter whether this happens through separate applications or through concurrence assessment provided it is possible for the two aspects of the building work to be assessed concurrently (in the interests of efficiency). However the building development approval should not become effective unless and until the planning component of the building work has been approved by the local government.


1 Guiney v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 26

2 Lucas v Brisbane City Council [2015] QPELR 671 paragraph [37]

3 Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 Section 12(3) and Schedule 6 Table 1

© 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.

David Nicholls
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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 Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions