The case of Hunt v Douglas Shire Council [2025] QPEC 19 concerned an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against the decision of Douglas Shire Council (Council) to refuse a development application for a small scale subdivision in Mowbray, Queensland (Site). 

The development application was for reconfiguring a lot (one into four lots) of Agricultural Class A Land within the Rural Zone. The Council defended its decision to refuse the development application arguing that the proposed development would impermissibly fragment good quality agricultural land, would fail to conserve areas for primary production, and is inconsistent with the planning strategy. The Applicant contended that the primary Site is already naturally fragmented and the proposal would not have adverse impacts to the productive capacity of the land. 

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and refused the development application on the basis that it does not comply with the relevant assessment benchmarks and can not occur without unacceptable adverse impacts.    

The Site forms an irregular shaped parcel with an area of 53.53 hectares and is located in the Rural Zone under the Douglas Shire Planning Scheme 2018 (Planning Scheme). Relevant overlays include the Natural Areas Overlay, in accordance with which part of the Site is mapped Matters of State Environmental Significance - Regulated Vegetation, and the Flood and Storm Tide Hazard Overlay in accordance with which part of the Site is mapped Storm Tide - Medium Hazard and part of the Site is mapped Storm Tide - High Hazard. 

The proposed development comprises four allotments, with lots two, three, and four ranging in size from 1.7 hectares to 2.6 hectares. The balance area forms proposed lot one with an area of 47.53 hectares and includes existing cane land, grazing land, a house, and an equestrian facility. The proposed lots are situated along the southern boundary, adjacent to existing rural residential lots to the east and west.  

The Court identified three critical questions for determination in the appeal as follows: 

1. Does the proposed development comply with the assessment benchmarks in the planning scheme? 

2. Can compliance with the assessment benchmarks be achieved by imposing lawful development conditions?  

3. Should the development application be approved in the exercise of the discretion under section 60(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld)?  

Upon review, the Court answered each question in the negative due to the following considerations.  

The Applicant argued that the proposed development complies with the relevant assessment benchmarks as there is no prescribed minimum lot size and also argued that there would be no fragmentation or adverse impact to the productive capacity of the Site. 

The Court considered the proposed development against the Rural Zone Code and Reconfiguring a Lot Code under the Planning Scheme. The purpose of the Rural Zone Code in section 6.2.10.2(1)(a) and (c) seeks to support primary production activities whilst protecting and managing natural resources to maintain this capacity.  

The Court held that the proposed development does not comply with the purpose as well as the overall outcomes of the Rural Zone Code, by further fragmenting good quality agricultural land and failing to conserve areas to be utilised for primary production. The Court went further, finding that the proposed development does not comply with the purpose of the Reconfiguring a Lot Code because it lacks sufficient areas, dimensions, and shapes suitable for a rural use (at [89]). 

Ultimately, the Court preferred the evidence given by the Council's expert in respect of the Site being suitable for large-scale primary production and held that the limitations, and proposed use of the lots, were so inadequate that there was no acceptable outcome to achieving compliance with either Code (see [86] and [98]). 

The Applicant argued that any issues in relation to the continuation of rural uses and reverse amenity impacts can be resolved through approval conditions such as building envelopes and boundary buffers for the proposed lots (at [88]). 

The Court rejected this argument, and given its determination with respect to fragmentation, concluded that these conditions would further erode the amount of good quality agricultural land. Whilst acknowledging that the reverse amenity impacts are partially mitigated, the broader planning harm remains by permanently severing areas of primary production.  

The Court stated that the size and availability of quality agricultural land is critical for the intended use of the Rural Zone Code (at [89]). Therefore, the extent of non-compliance and fragmentation caused by the creation of smaller lots was not considered resolvable through development conditions.  

The Applicant urged the Court to exercise its discretion under section 60(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2016 to approve the development application. 

The Court held that the matters, singularly or collectively, do not favour the exercise of discretion for approval (at [91]). 

The Court found that the proposal was non-compliant with the Planning Scheme, was not consistent with the surrounding pattern of development, did not respond to the areas rural character, and would cause fragmentation contributing to cumulative regional harms (at [106]).  

The Court held that the proposal development was "…opportunistic, rather than sympathetic, to the land’s features and topography, and surrounding development and land uses" (at [101]). 

The Court had regard to the significant non-compliance with the assessment benchmarks and did not accept that the proposal could occur without unacceptable adverse impacts or town planning consequences. Therefore, the Court upheld the Council's decision to refuse the development application and dismissed the appeal (see [111] to [112]).