SEQ development war: State caught in councils legal crossfire

Queensland councils are racking up hefty legal bills in development disputes, with ratepayers footing the tab for an explosion of planning court cases.

Five councils and the court cases that they are involved with in which the state government is also a party. Data: Queensland Parliament

Queensland taxpayers and ratepayers are footing the bill for mounting legal battles in the state’s Planning and Environment Court, with new data revealing which councils are embroiled in the most development-related litigation where the state government has also had to step in.

The state’s Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning has been involved in 59 court proceedings since December 2022, newly obtained government figures reveal.

Internal state records released by deputy premier Jarrod Bleijie last week, indicate that Brisbane City Council with 10 state-joined cases, tops the list including high-density development disputes.

In the case of Kurban & Hasan v Brisbane City Council, an appeal was lodged against a council decision to approve a subdivision for a childcare centre at the Bald Hills Islamic mosque, with the appellants arguing it would reduce mosque parking from 79 to 66 spaces, remove significant trees and vegetation, and cause traffic, noise, and amenity impacts that would disrupt mosque activities and community events.

The Bald Hills Mosque, near where a development application was lodged for a child centre. Picture: Prayers Connect

As of mid 2025, the appeal remained pending before the Planning and Environment Court, with no published judgment available.

Another well-known case was Sunnygold International Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council in which Sunnygold was seeking minor changes to a longstanding development approval for a large residential and mixed-use project in Tingalpa, including relocating a sewer pump station and extending the approval period to 2027.

The Planning and Environment Court extended deadlines for compliance and listed the matter for review in August, indicating ongoing legal and procedural steps rather than a final ruling.

Rockhampton Regional Council has featured in five proceedings with state involvement, followed by Sunshine Coast Regional Council also with five cases.

Redland City Council is named in four state-linked proceedings, making it one of the most prominent contributors outside Brisbane.

Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie said the state had been involved in 59 cases in land courts.

These include contentious and costly matters involving environmental protections, residential estates, and legal challenges from developers, with the state as a co-respondent.

One of the most significant Redland cases was McGowan v Redland City Council & Ors, where Redland Bay residents Paul and Janice McGowan tried to block a 38-lot subdivision on Kidd St and Serpentine Creek Rd.

The case generated 24 separate court filings over five months, including affidavits, mediation, and revised development plans.

Redland council, the developer, and the Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works were all actively involved.

The Planning and Environment Court ultimately dismissed the appeal in December 2024, allowing the development to proceed under a tailored variation to the Redland City Plan.

In Thornlands, Harvest Property Pty Ltd v Redland City Council centred on a plan to split one lot into five at Dinwoodie Rd.

Dinwoodie Rd at Thornlands. Picture: Google Maps

Redland council and the State Assessment and Referral Agency objected over mapped koala habitat protections, prompting the developer to launch court action seeking deemed approval.

That case stretched across two years but was discontinued in late 2024 without resolution after significant investment by both local and state officers in technical assessments and legal preparation.

The developer filed a new appeal over the same site in February, this time in the Land Court with the state department again a co-respondent.

A five-day hearing is scheduled for August.

Another Redland case still underway involves Ballard Road Pty Ltd about a 16-lot subdivision at Finucane Rd, Capalaba.

The council rejected the application over concerns about lot layout, emergency access, and koala habitat loss.

The matter was heard this month and is set for review in August, with the developer arguing that the plan meets all regulatory requirements.

Logan City Council was involved in three state-linked matters, including Landarch Properties Pty Ltd v Logan City Council & Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning.

The Planning and Environment Court dismissed the developer’s appeal to subdivide land, siding with Logan City Council and the Queensland State Government in November.

The court found the proposed clearing of nearly half the site’s native vegetation was unacceptable and could not be offset elsewhere on land at Chambers Flat.

The court found neither the council nor the state’s environmental experts supported the trade-off with the appeal formally dismissed on November 15.

Another Planning and Environment Court case involving Logan council and the state was an application by Lotus-Dee in June last year, with the final hearing and judgment delivered in July 2024.

The court approved minor changes to an existing marina development permit at Loganholme, allowing the amendment sought by Lotus-Dee.

Both Logan City Council and the Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works were respondents,

In the majority of the 59 cases, ratepayers shoulder the cost of council legal teams, expert reports and court appearances and state taxpayers also fund departmental lawyers and planning specialists.

Though costs vary, Planning and Environment Court litigation can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, often stalling housing, infrastructure or business projects.

The Local Government Association of Queensland has warned that litigation drains council budgets.

Planning experts including Steffan Harries town planners and advocacy groups are calling for expanded mediation, clearer alignment between state and local policies, and tougher safeguards to prevent ballooning legal bills for developers.

Originally published as SEQ development war: State caught in councils legal crossfire