The case of Austin BMI Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council & Ors [2026] QPEC 17 concerned an application to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) to make a minor change to a development approval for a resource recovery and landfill facility in New Chum (Development Approval).  

The Development Approval was issued by the Court in May 2024 following a contested hearing of an appeal against the deemed refusal by the Ipswich City Council (Council) of the development application for the resource recovery and landfill facility. 

The landfill component of the Development Approval "…involves the progressive filling and rehabilitation of a void created by open cut mining. It is to be filled with non-putrescible waste. Prior to filling the void with waste, it is to be partially dewatered and backfilled to create an engineered platform upon which a composite liner will be placed" (at [9]).

Condition 20(i) of the Development Approval requires that mapped carbonaceous material susceptible to spontaneous combustion be removed and placed in the flooded part of the void so that it is cooled, extinguished and deprived of oxygen, with this process being subject to a management plan that is required to be assessed and approved by the Council (see [11] and [12]). 

Whilst completing preparatory work and detailed design, the Applicant discovered that the carbonaceous material susceptible to combustion occurred 15 metres deeper that what was previously assumed (at [31]). 

The Applicant accordingly made the Application to change the Development Approval. The only proposed change which was contentious sought to amend the risk management response to the carbonaceous material required by Condition 20(i) of the Development Approval. The Applicant sought changes which would permit carbonaceous material that is located below the approved finished levels of the resource recovery area to be capped by a "composite system comprising a 1.5 metre thick clay liner covered with a minimum of 300mm of hardstand" which would be "…'keyed' into the 5 metre thick clay landfill liner" (at [27]).

The Application to change the Development Approval was opposed by one Co-Respondent on the basis that the change proposed to Condition 20(i) would result in substantially different development and therefore would not be considered a 'minor' change as defined in schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). 

To support this argument, the Co-Respondent led evidence from a mining engineer, Dr Donegan, which questioned the effectiveness of the new clay cap by opining (at [38]):

• that "...the presence of the clay cap will not starve the hot material susceptible to spontaneous combustion from oxygen…"; and 

• "…the clay cap, even if it remains intact, will not allow the underlying material to cool as it will trap…heat".

The Court expressed reservations regarding the reliability of Dr Donegan's evidence and concluded that it did no more than establish that the proposed change should be considered cautiously (at [39]). The Court was satisfied, on the basis of evidence from the Applicant's expert, Dr Williams, that Dr Donegan's concerns with the clay cap were understood and could be managed appropriately (at [40]). 

The Court found that whilst the proposed change to Condition 20(i) altered the way that a site constraint will be managed, it was satisfied that it would not result in substantially different development (at [42]). 

Further, the Court noted that the change would result in an improved development outcome as removing all of the carbonaceous material, as required by the original Condition 20(i), would lower the level of the resource recovery pad so much that it would create a depression in the contours, which would in turn create issues with managing overland flow and leachate (see [32] and [34]). 

The Court was satisfied that the proposed change constituted a minor change and therefore allowed the change to be made to the Development Approval.