Gold Coast City Council planning and development legal bills revealed

The Gold Coast City Council’s legal bills have nearly doubled in five years on the back of high-profile court battles over its planning decisions, new data has revealed. FIND OUT HOW

The Gold Coast City Council’s legal bills over planning decisions have nearly doubled in five years on the back of several high-profile court battles.

Figures obtained by the Bulletin reveal council’s spend on planning appeals in 2022-23 was $10.9m, up from $6m just five years 2017-18.

Council’s legal bill in 2011 was $5.6m

Council planning boss Cr Mark Hammel defended the cost, arguing they did not tell the full picture.

Cr Mark Hammel Picture: Mike Batterham

He said. the legal battles council faced over its development decisions played “an important role” in sharpening future assessments of projects against the City Plan.

“Council has to ensure that we are responsibly defending our position in court and it is an important part of the development process,” he said.

“The submitters have their right to refer something to the court if they wish and a local government like us has to be prepared to spend reasonable amounts on defending our position.

“Court decisions or judgement lead to new case law and play an important role so that future assessments against the City Plan scheme are sharpened.”

Council’s planning decisions have come under the microscope Picture; Glenn Campbell

According to the data:

* In the 22-23 financial year, council was involved in a total of 110 appeals. Of that figure, 55 appeals were received, and 55 appeals were resolved.

* The number of active appeals against council’s development application decisions is 43.

The Council has been involved in several high-profile legal battles in the past two years over its planning decisions.

Most recently:

* The court overturned council’s rejection of the 26-storey Sea Glass tower in Broadbeach. Councillors chose to contest the Court’s decision with the Court ruling it could not fight the decision but would also have to pay developer DVB’s court costs, something expected to top $500,000.

Artist impression of the proposed Sea Glass tower

* The Court in September overturned council’s rejection of an 18-level tower on a 410sq m site at Main Beach which was home to the Lark Cafe.

* Developer S & S projects in July appealed against council shooting down its plans for a 23-storey Palm Beach tower on the site of The Collective.

New artist impressions of the proposed La Mer tower in Main Beach.

* The council went to court in February with Little Projects over plans to build a 35-storey tower on Broadbeach’s Mary Ave after council rejected the tower. both parties came to a negotiated outcome before the appeal could be heard.

A council spokeswoman said the number of appeals to the Planning and Environment Court represented “less than one per cent” of all development application decisions made.

The Main Beach skyline on the Gold Coast, with the addition of an 18-level tower on The Lark cafe site.

“In conducting Planning and Environment Court proceedings all parties have an obligation to assist in resolving issues where possible, avoiding undue delay and expense,” she said.

“The Planning and Environment Court provides for a dispute resolution process whereby parties are encouraged to resolve, or at least narrow the scope of issues and as a result, it is common to see matters resolve at an early stage at minimal costs.”

President of Community Alliance, John Hicks. Picture Glenn Hampson

Community Alliance head John Hicks said the cost of the legal bills was modest when compared with the developments.

“Appeals on planning decisions, both by the applicants and the council are unfortunately inevitable under the overly relaxed performance-based planning scheme which is in place in Queensland at the moment,” he said.

“The existing City Plan clearly has provisions which create uncertainty for council and for applicants and our view is that it is no longer fit for purpose.

“We welcome the council’s decision to completely renew the City Plan and get rid of the nebulous provisions which create this uncertainty for both developers, the council and the community.

“The cost of those appeals, while it looks like a high figure, in the overall scheme of what the developments are worth is a tiny fraction.”