Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 JUNE 2018

Even if an entity is an entity directly affected by a permissible change request, there is no standing before the Planning and Environment Court

This was an application in a pending proceeding by a third-party who wished to be joined as a co-respondent by election.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

In brief

The Planning and Environment Court decision of Aveo Clayfield Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2017] QPEC 60 involved an application in a pending proceeding by a third-party who wished to be joined as a co-respondent by election.

The proceeding involved an application under section 369(1)(d) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) by the Applicant seeking orders to change various aspects of a development approval for a retirement village on land situated at 469 Sandgate Road, Albion. The development approval was issued by the Court on 12 February 2016.

The SPA continued to apply to the proceeding despite the Planning Act 2016 (Planning Act) coming into effect on 3 July 2017 as the application was filed on 21 June 2017.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from