The case of Gympie Terrace Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council [2026] QPEC 24 concerned an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) by Gympie Terrace Pty Ltd (Appellant) against the decision of Noosa Shire Council (Council) to impose conditions on a development approval for food and drink outlets and short-term accommodation at Gympie Terrace, Noosaville (proposal).

The case was distilled to two remaining issues for the site, being whether Condition 61 should require all waste collection and servicing onsite using 1,100 litre bulk bins, and whether Condition 23 should limit service vehicle movements to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Saturday and prohibit them on Sundays and public holidays (see [23] and [24]).

The Court imposed Condition 61, but held the Council's Condition 23 was an unreasonable imposition on and not reasonably required in relation to the development. The appeal was allowed in part and the Council's decision set aside and replaced with a decision to approve the development application subject to the development conditions in the Court's judgment dated 19 June 2026 (see [96], [97] and [108] to [114]).

Under section 65 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) (Planning Act), a development condition must be relevant to, but not an unreasonable imposition on, the development or use of premises, or be reasonably required in relation to the development or use of premises as a consequence of the development.

Referring to the decisions in the cases of Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2025] QCA 207 and Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor (No. 2) [2025] QPEC 25 which are the subject of our December 2025 article and April 2026 article respectively, the Court emphasised that a condition must implement planning policy, fairly and reasonably relate to the development and be fair and reasonable in the circumstances (see [30] to [32]).

A lawful condition is not mandatory. The Court retains a residual discretion whether to impose it. The Appellant bore the onus of showing that each challenged condition failed section 65 of the Planning Act or should not be imposed. Rejecting the Council's condition does not automatically establish the Appellant's alternative (see [35] to [37]).

The site has frontages to Gympie Terrace, Thomas Street and Albert Street. The proposal is a three storey mixed use building including four ground floor food and drink tenancies, 11 accommodation units providing up to 16 guest rooms, 57 onsite car spaces and two waste rooms (see [3] and [12] to [15]).

The applicable planning scheme, Noosa Plan 2020 (Amendment 1) (Planning Scheme), does not mandate onsite collection. The Waste Management Code in part 9 of the Planning Scheme instead requires collection to be safe, efficient and convenient, and contemplates onsite or kerbside collection depending on the proposal. Existing kerbside practices do not prevent contemporary standards applying to a new development (see [56] and [59] to [64]).

The Appellant proposed kerbside collection using 240 or 360 litre wheelie bins. The Court found the proposed bin numbers insufficient because the waste calculation relied on informal compaction and an 80th percentile weighting factor supported only by anecdotal observations, and kerbside collection would have to occur before 7.00 am to ensure collection does not obstruct the bicycle lane, narrow the traffic lane and create potential conflicts with parked vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and the driver (see [17], [21], [22], [54] and [56]). 

The Court held that it is safe, efficient and convenient for onsite collection using 1,100 litre bulk bins which would require fewer bins and provide faster servicing in a controlled environment (see [57], [58], [65] and [66]).

The site is identified as a "key corner" with primary active street frontages in a pedestrian oriented tourist precinct. The proposed building and outdoor dining areas would significantly improve the streetscape and reinforce the locality as a hub of activity (see [40] to [42] and [71]).

The Court rejected the contention that street collection is a better design outcome, finding that daily kerbside collection would leave a parade of bins on the street and a refuse vehicle in the public realm during collection, detracting from the development's positive streetscape contribution (see [72] to [75]).

Onsite collection enabled cardboard recycling under the Council's waste contract, separated waste streams and promoted ecological sustainability. Widening the bin room doors and ramps was ordinary detailed design work, not an unnecessary burden (see [51], [67] and [83]). Further, the Court was not satisfied that the noise impact on neighbouring apartments is unacceptable in circumstances where bulk bins required fewer collections and avoids noise from wheeling numerous bins to the kerb before 6:00 am (see [76] to [82]).

The Court held that Condition 61 satisfies both limbs of section 65 of the Planning Act. It applies contemporary waste standards and keeps impacts within the site as far as practicable and is appropriate in the exercise of discretion (see [83] to [86] and [94] to [96]).

The Appellant argued that onsite collection would result in substantially different development. Under section 46(3) of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), the Court could consider the change only if it was minor. Whether a change is minor must be assessed broadly and fairly in the context of the whole development (see [87] to [89]).

Refuse vehicle activity would occur only several times each week in a driveway already used by visitors, customers and service vehicles, including refrigerated vehicles. No expert supported the view that onsite collection will cause unacceptable effects and the evidence supported that overall noise dose is minor (see [90] to [92]).

The Court held that the additional noise would not result in substantially different development and that to the extent Condition 61 changes the application, the change is minor and can lawfully be considered (at [93]).

Condition 23 prohibits service vehicle movements before 7:00 am, after 6:00 pm and at all times on Sundays and public holidays. The Council relied on the Business Activities Code provisions in the Planning Scheme directed to early morning, evening and weekend noise affecting sensitive land uses (see [97] to [101]).

Although the land technically adjoins the High Density Residential Zone, the adjoining premises are used for short-term accommodation consistent with the purpose of the Tourist Accommodation Zone. The Appellant's proposed servicing hours from 6 am daily accords with acceptable outcome AO11.2 of the Business Activities Code which permits operation from 6 am to 10 pm with the exception of food and drink outlets which may operate until midnight on Friday and Saturday (see [102] to [104]).

The Court therefore held that the Council's Condition 23 is an unreasonable imposition on and not reasonably required in relation to the development. The Court would not have imposed it in any event. The Appellant's alternative independently satisfies section 65 of the Planning Act because it aligns servicing with the approved operating hours and the character of the locality (see [110] to [112]).

The Court was satisfied that onsite refuse collection was preferable and imposed Condition 61, but held that Condition 23 was an unreasonable imposition on and not reasonably required in relation to the development.

This decision demonstrates that the lawfulness of a development condition does not turn solely on whether an assessment benchmark expressly requires the conditioned outcome or whether similar activities already occur nearby. The Court will examine the planning purpose, the change caused by the development and the practical consequences of competing arrangements.

In this case, Condition 61 was upheld because onsite collection was a proportionate and contemporary response to the scale, design and location of the development. Condition 23 failed because its blanket restrictions did not reflect the tourist character, approved operating hours or expected activity of the locality.

The following key matters are significant and important:

• Existing servicing arrangements are relevant but do not freeze development standards or prevent a local government requiring contemporary onsite arrangements supported by planning policy and site specific evidence.

• Safety, streetscape, waste separation, ecological sustainability and operational convenience may collectively establish that onsite waste collection is not an unreasonable imposition on and is reasonably required in relation to the development or the use of premises as a consequence of the development.

• A condition that introduces a new impact may not amount to substantially different development where the impact is assessed in the context of the whole development.

• Conditions restricting servicing hours should reflect the actual and planned character of the locality. Blanket Sunday and public holiday restrictions may be unjustified in active tourist and mixed use areas.

• Rejecting a condition imposed by a local government does not guarantee that the applicant's alternative will be imposed. All development conditions must independently satisfy the statutory relevant or reasonable test and planning context.