The case of Woodhall v Brisbane City Council [2026] QPEC 12 concerned an appeal by an applicant for a development application (Applicant) to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against a refusal by the Brisbane City Council (Council) of a code assessable development application for a development permit to demolish a pre-1947 house (subject house) at Grovely Terrace, Mitchelton.

The subject house is within the Traditional Building Character Overlay (TBC Overlay) under the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (version 31) (City Plan). The parties agreed that the subject house represents traditional building character, has not been substantially altered and appears to have been constructed in 1946 or earlier (see [3] and [8]).

The issues required a consideration of each relevant performance outcome (PO) and acceptable outcome (AO) of the Traditional Building Character (Demolition) Overlay Code and in particular whether the subject house is in a section of Grovely Terrace within the TBC Overlay that has no traditional character (AO5(d)), and whether the subject house does not contribute to the traditional building character of the part of Grovely Terrace within the TBC Overlay (PO5(c)). The Court rejected both propositions and confirmed the Council's refusal (see [10], [60], [82] and [89]).

The Court is required under section 60(2)(a) of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) to approve the application to the extent it complies with all assessment benchmarks (at [7]).

The City Plan provides that code compliance can be demonstrated by satisfying the purpose, overall outcomes and the relevant PO or AO. The Applicant therefore needed to establish compliance with either AO5(d) or PO5(c), rather than both (see [14] to [18]).

The parties agreed that the relevant relationship is between the subject house and other land within the TBC Overlay. The assessment therefore excludes much of Grovely Terrace as it is not within the TBC Overlay, although the wider streetscape forms part of the factual context (at [19]).

The Applicant's expert described the longer extent of Grovely Terrace as a "highly mixed streetscape" that does not display a visually cohesive traditional character (see [26] and [46]). The Council contended that the relevant section of Grovely Terrace is the discrete mapped segment comprising the subject house and the two adjoining pre-1947 houses immediately to its south. Each of the three houses display traditional "timber-and-tin" construction (see [24], [25] and [47]).

The Court held that identifying the relevant section under AO5(d) is a fact-specific evaluative task. The Court held that nothing in the ordinary meaning of "a section of the street within the...overlay" precludes a section comprising six lots occupied by three houses. The experts' agreement usefully framed the evidence, but it does not construe the City Plan or limit the Court's assessment (at [56]). Because the TBC Overlay is intermittent, the Court held that it is not unreasonable to define the relevant section by reference to the mapped segment containing the subject house and its two neighbours (at [59]).

The Council's position was that AO5(d) is not met because both neighbouring houses display traditional building character and the subject house is therefore not in a section within the TBC Overlay that has no traditional character (at [60]).

The outcome is the same on the Applicant's broader extent. Within the TBC Overlay there are eight pre-1947 buildings and two additional buildings that are partly mapped. The Court rejected an assessment confined to a static view from in front of the subject house, importantly noting that the experience of a person moving through a street is not the experience of one standing still (see [61] to [63]).

Applying the qualified approach discussed in Marriott v Brisbane City Council [2015] QPEC 45, the Court asked whether the relevant area lacked sufficient character to be reasonably described as having traditional character. In this case, 50 per cent of buildings within the TBC Overlay displaying traditional character was sufficient (see [58] and [64] to [70]).

The finding did not establish a numerical threshold and future assessments remain fact specific. It reflected the intact condition of the subject house, the number and distribution of mapped pre-1947 buildings and the circumstances specific to Grovely Terrace.

The Applicant's expert relied on the mixed visual character of the broader streetscape and the inconsistent mapping of pre-1947 and post-1946 houses, which appeared to also include properties outside the TBC Overlay.

The Court identified that the term "character streetscape" appears in an overall outcome, but not in AO5(d) or PO5(c). The central question concerned traditional character within the TBC Overlay (see [71] to [75]). Although the Court ultimately accepted that the expert's concluded opinion was directed to mapped buildings, it was not persuasive: eight fully mapped and two partly mapped pre-1947 buildings are not a minority cohort within the TBC Overlay (see [76] to [82]).

The Court did not need to decide whether the relevant part of the street for PO5(c) is the three-house segment or the experts' broader extent because each alternative displays traditional building character (see [83] to [86]).

The Applicant argued that vegetation and topography make the subject house imperceptible or largely obscured from "a number of viewpoints". The Court found that neither vegetation nor topography significantly obscures it, and that any vegetation based obscuration is not permanent (see [87] and [88]). Direct intervisibility between every mapped character house is not required. A passer-by's perception of the street is informed by cumulative observations as the subject house, its two neighbours and other pre-1947 houses within the TBC Overlay come into and out of sight (see [89] to [93]).

The subject house retains sufficient visibility in direct and oblique views. There is a sufficient relationship between it and other houses displaying traditional building character for the subject house to contribute under PO5(c) (see [89] and [94] to [96]).

The Court confirmed the Council's refusal. The Applicant did not establish compliance with AO5(d) because the relevant section of Grovely Terrace has traditional character or PO5(c) because the subject house contributes to the traditional building character of the relevant part of Grovely Terrace.

The Court's decision provides guidance for demolition applications in segmented character overlays. The relevant section of the street must be identified from the wording of the particular assessment benchmark and the overlay mapping, not assumed from an expert's study area or the visual character of the wider street. Further, a direct visual connection between every protected house is not essential as traditional character may be experienced cumulatively while moving through a street.