The case of Paradise Holdings (Qld) Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council & Ors [2025] QPEC 21 concerned an applicant appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) by Paradise Holdings (Qld) Pty Ltd (Applicant) against the refusal by the Sunshine Coast Regional Council (Council) of an impact assessable development application for a development permit for a material change of use to facilitate mixed use commercial development in the Rural Zone at Pacific Paradise (see [1] to [3]). 

The proposed development is a service centre comprising a service station with a convenience store and two quick service restaurants, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with access via a new all‑turns signalised intersection on David Low Way (see [1], [23] and [36]).

The Rural Zone in the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014 (Planning Scheme) anticipates only a limited range of non‑rural activities that complement, value add or provide a service to rural areas, and that maintain and enhance rural character and visual amenity (see [92] to [96]).

The Court accepted that the site is a good candidate for a service station and convenience store on a first principles basis (at [43]). The Court however warned that "…it is important not to be drawn too far along the path towards approval by a first principles assessment" (at [44]).

The Court identified the following overlapping forward planning decisions at the centre of the appeal (at [44]):

• Management of future growth in the Planning Scheme area and the resulting settlement pattern.

• Floodplain and flood hazard management.

• Protection and enhancement of scenic and landscape values of importance to the character and identity of the Planning Scheme area.

The matters considered by the Court to have the greatest influence included whether an exception to a forward planning decision about flood affected land is met and whether the scale and intensity of the proposed development is appropriate on undeveloped rural land (at [4]).

The appeal was dismissed and the Council’s refusal was confirmed (at [196]).

The development application attracted 49 submissions, 40 of which were properly made. The Court accepted the agreed summary of issues raised in the parties' submissions and gave the submissions and lay evidence weight to the extent it was consistent with the Court's character and amenity findings (see [39] to [40]).

The following potential reasons for refusal were not pursued or were resolved in the proceedings and thus were not the subject of substantial consideration by the Court (at [41]):

• Infrastructure capacity.

• Agricultural land loss.

• New centre impacts.

• A 'Coty' principle argument which related to a Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy.

• Traffic issues, which were resolved through the joint expert meeting process.

Although noncompliance with the Service Station Code was alleged, the Court treated the Code as a secondary consideration. It was not determinative and did not add to the force of the Strategic Framework, the applicable overlay codes and the Rural Zone Code (see [116] to [118]).

The land is partly affected by a Key Resource Area (KRA) designation for sand. The Court accepted the designation can inform reasonable character and amenity expectations, but emphasised that a "…KRA designation is not a licence to scar the landscape" and that any future extractive industry would still be expected to comply with landscape and scenic controls and rehabilitation requirements (see [14] to [15]).

The Court accepted the flood engineers' position that flooding impacts could be effectively mitigated so there is no foreseeable risk to life or property (see [85] to [87]).

However, the proposed development is expressly discouraged by the Strategic Framework and the Flood Hazard Overlay unless an exception applies. The Court was not satisfied the proposed development was infill development within an existing developed area or that an overriding community need was demonstrated (see [119] to [132] and [158] to [163]).

The Court treated the noncompliance with the forward planning strategy as weighty and capable of justifying refusal in its own right (see [88] and [163]).

The Court held that "infill development" fills a gap within an "existing developed area", and whether an area is "developed" is a question of fact and degree (see [123] to [126]).

On the evidence, the relevant existing developed area is the urban footprint east of the Sunshine Motorway. The site is physically disconnected from that footprint and would create a disconnected extension into a rural/open space setting (see [127] to [132]).

In approaching "overriding community need", the Court adopted a qualitative and quantitative assessment consistent with the observations of the Queensland Court of Appeal in the case of Yu Feng Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2007] QCA 382; (2007) 156 LGERA 399, and first considered the extent of intrusion into flood affected land (see [134] to [136]).

The Court accepted a need for the service station component, including that it would provide a modern facility with electric vehicle charging and truck facilities and improve the "physical wellbeing" of the primary trade area, but the weight of need is low because it is not pressing and the fuel market is competitive (see [141] to [148]).

The Court was not persuaded there is latent unsatisfied community demand for the food and drink outlets, and held the grounds advanced fell well short of justifying departure from the deliberate floodplain strategy (see [153] to [157] and [159] to [161]).

Using photomontages, the Court found that the development would detract from the rural setting viewed from the Sunshine Motorway and David Low Way because it would be visually obtrusive, partially obscure views to Mount Ninderry and be neither low-key nor unobtrusive (see [166] to [168]).

The Court noted this did not mean that the land must remain vacant in perpetuity, rather, the issue was the acceptability of change against existing and planned character (see [169] to [171]).

Having regard to the limited range of non‑rural activities that are contemplated for the Rural Zone, the Court held that whilst the elevated pad is an acceptable engineering response to flooding, it would produce an unacceptable, urban visual outcome inconsistent with a sensitive response to the physical constraints (at [176]).

Even if noise and lighting could be conditioned, the Court held that the proposed development would adversely affect rural amenity by changing the "feel" or "sense of place", noting amenity is a broad concept that includes intangible impacts of this kind (see [177] to [179]).

Overall, the noncompliances with the Rural Zone Code are material and indicate that the proposed development is inappropriate in the zone, principally due to scale and intensity rather than the type of land uses (see [180] to [181]).

The Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Council’s refusal because the proposed development conflicts with weighty forward planning decisions about flood hazard land, would unacceptably diminish scenic and rural landscape values and would introduce an urban scale, high‑intensity outcome inconsistent with rural amenity and character, without an overriding community need to justify approval.

The following key matters are significant:

• Floodplain strategies with built‑in exceptions are likely to carry substantial weight where the strategy is not shown to be unsound or overtaken by events, and the exceptions are not met.

• Even where flooding impacts can be mitigated, the scale, intensity and design of proposed development may still lead to refusal due to resulting landscape, scenic and rural amenity impacts.

• Amenity is a broad concept that includes the "feel" or "sense of place", and an adverse change to that sense of place can be a material planning impact.

• Compliance with a use‑specific code (such as the Service Station Code) may not materially influence the discretion where the decisive issues arise under the Strategic Framework, applicable overlay codes and zone code.