Judge shoots down ambitious Benaraby retirement village proposal

The developer of a proposed retirement village near Gladstone took the local council to court after it rejected the proposal for being inconsistent with the planning scheme.

A developer’s bid to build a massive relocatable home precinct in a rural area has been crushed after the local council and a judge rejected it due to its clash with the planning scheme and inappropriate location.

The developer, Boyneglade Property Developments Pty Ltd, lodged an application with Gladstone Regional Council for a material change of use for a relocatable home facility on the Bruce Highway at Benaraby, however the council voted to reject it.

Boyneglade took the council and 17 co-respondents to court to appeal the decision.

The Brisbane Planning and Environment Court heard the 262.94ha site near Benaraby and Tannum Sands was zoned as rural and was located 6.6km from the closest source of shops and 28km from the nearest hospital.

It would have also sported an 18-hole golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts and a bowling green.

Judge William Everson said the precise scope of the development was unclear.

“The proposed development is contentious having regard to a number of provisions of the planning scheme,” he said.

The developer, represented by Gantt Legal and barrister Andrew Skoien, argued the ‘Places in the Gladstone Region’ section of the planning scheme could mean the development was a ‘Specific Use place’ like an industry, port facility, or larger sporting facility.

“The difficulty for the appellant is that this oddly worded provision accompanied by a crude diagrammatic representation, does not refer to residential uses and needs to be read in the context of the planning scheme as a whole,” Judge Everson told the court.

Boyneglade also argued there was a need for this development, however the council disagreed.

The council, represented by Evans Planning Law and barristers Mitchel Batty and Tim Stork, alleged the proposed development wasn’t appropriately connected to infrastructure networks and went against many provisions of the planning scheme.

Judge Everson told the court the developer failed to demonstrate a planning, community or economic need for the proposed development.

“The likely consequences of the proposed development from a traffic and accessibility perspective are concerning,” he said.

“The isolation of the proposed development and the lack of any pedestrian or cycling linkages has the consequence that, in the absence of any public transport infrastructure, the future residents would be almost entirely dependent on travel by private vehicles.”

The court also heard of amenity issues from the nearby Benaraby Motorsport Precinct.

The appeal was dismissed.