For property owners, developers, businesses, and planners alike, navigating environmental and planning law can be challenging. Even the best-prepared project – with sound vision, a strong team, and community benefits – can face setbacks when legal or compliance issues arise. Property and Commercial Law Senior Associate Mieke Elzer, and Commercial Litigation Special Counsel Jade Carlson examine recent decisions that demonstrate just how intricate the development process can be.
Recent battles in the courts across Brisbane, Sydney and Northern New South Wales demonstrate just how complex the development process is, with important lessons for anyone involved in planning and land use.
Here, our experienced Planning and Environment Law team has deep dived into a handful of important cases that carry valuable lessons on compliance, retrospective approvals, valid consents, environmental obligations, heritage constraints, and the ever-contentious issue of “loss of view.”
BRISBANE
Roycorp Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2025]
Roycorp Pty Ltd submitted plans for building several residences in the Brisbane suburb of Carina. The firm believed their development was in line with local zoning laws and was surprised when the council rejected the bid on the basis that the plan did not meet the planning scheme standards consistently and was said to impact the character of the neighbourhood.
Roycorp appealed, but the Planning and Environment Court upheld the council’s rejection. The development abruptly came to a stop.
Lesson: Compliance extends beyond ticking boxes. Councils assess not just technical adherence to planning controls but whether a proposal genuinely fits the character of an area. Even minor departures in density or design can be fatal.
Nairn & Anor v Brisbane City Council [2024]
In Gumdale, a property was being used for building activities without specific approval. The owners sought retrospective consent, but the Court dismissed the appeal due to inconsistencies with planning controls and environmental concerns.
Lesson: Retrospective approvals are increasingly complex. Councils and courts take a strict approach to unauthorised uses, with environmental and community factors weighing heavily in their decisions.
NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES
Santin Quarry Extension [2025]
A Northern NSW quarry operator sought to extend operating hours and alter haul routes. Council initially approved the modification, but the NSW Land and Environment Court overturned it, finding the original consent had lapsed, leaving no valid legal basis for the changes.
Lesson: Development consents must be current and valid. Major project changes often require a fresh development application rather than a modification to an expired consent.
Mount Pleasant Coal Mine Expansion [2025]
MACH Energy’s expansion of the Mount Pleasant coal mine faced a significant setback when environmental campaigners successfully challenged the approval. The NSW Court of Appeal found that the assessment failed to adequately consider scope three emissions – those generated when coal is exported and burned overseas.
Lesson: Environmental due diligence is expanding. Courts are increasingly considering indirect and global impacts, not just local effects. Developers should ensure their environmental assessments are comprehensive and defensible.
SYDNEY
Avoca Street Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2025]
A developer proposed a multi-storey residential tower in Paddington, an area renowned for its heritage streetscapes. Despite compliance arguments, the council and local community opposed the project. The Land and Environment Court agreed, finding the building’s scale and design were inconsistent with the precinct’s heritage character.
Lesson: Heritage context matters. Even compliant designs can be refused if they visually dominate or undermine an area’s established character.
Western Projects Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2024]
Western Projects sought to redevelop a large industrial precinct in western Sydney for warehousing and logistics. While the application conformed with land zoning, issues were raised regarding air quality, additional truck movements, and potential loss of threatened vegetation along the site boundary. The council rejected the developer’s mitigation offer. The Land and Environment Court upheld the refusal, mentioning insufficient environmental assessment and poor incorporation of ecological buffers.
Lesson: Environmental and ecological concerns are of utmost priority. This is particularly true in outer industrial regions and may override otherwise prudent applications. Early ecological assessment and public consultation can prevent rejection.
Hartley v North Sydney Council [2025]
A Cremorne homeowner proposed a two-level extension featuring expansive harbour views. Neighbours objected, claiming it would obstruct their views. On appeal, the Court ruled that the development unreasonably impacted view sharing under NSW planning principles.
Lesson: “View sharing” is an evolving and significant planning consideration. Courts will often favour modifications that preserve neighbouring amenity, particularly in high-value residential areas.
Key takeaways
Across Queensland and New South Wales, a few clear themes have emerged:
- Tick-box compliance is not enough — context, community character, and design intent all matter.
- Indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment are now squarely within the courts’ sights.
- Development approvals have a lifespan; once lapsed, modifications will not revive them.
- Heritage context and neighbour impacts continue to carry significant weight.
For developers and planners, early legal engagement and proactive environmental assessment are key to navigating the increasingly complex landscape of Property and Environment Law.
Attwood Marshall Lawyers – a strong legal strategy makes a difference
In each of these situations, the environment and planning laws are complicated, and the dangers are tangible. No matter whether you are building flats, modifying land use, or expanding a resource scheme, little mistakes can result in serious delays or outright refusal.
The Planning and Environmental Law team at Attwood Marshall Lawyers guides clients through the planning maze from start to finish. From making sure proposals are compliant before lodging and dealing with community objections and environmental risk, through to representing clients at council negotiations and in court appeals.
In a world of law where detail matters, early advice isn’t just helpful; it’s essential. Call our friendly team on 1800 621 071 to discuss planning and environment matters.
