The case of Charters Towers Operations Pty Ltd v Charters Towers Regional Council (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 2 concerns an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against the decision of the Charters Towers Regional Council (Council) to refuse a development application for a non-resident workforce accommodation facility at 82-92 Deanes Road, Millchester (the Site). 

On 11 June 2025, the Court delivered its reasons (First Reasons) in the case of Charters Towers Operations Pty Ltd v Charters Towers Regional Council [2025] QPEC 12 finding that the proposed development could not be approved in its current form and suggesting that a reduction in the scale and bulk of the development may result in an acceptable impact. The appeal was adjourned for a further review so that the Court's suggestions could be considered by the parties.  

A further hearing occurred on 4 August 2025, and amended plans were provided to the Court which reflected an updated proposal, designed in accordance with the suggestions provided in the First Reasons as to what would represent an acceptable impact (at [2]). 

The Court held that a part approval of the amended development application should be granted on the basis that the proposed development results in an acceptable impact, particularly in the context of the proposed development conditions (at [4]).  

The Council contended that some of the proposed changes to the development application may amount to a minor change, and therefore should require a minor change application. This point was not advanced as a basis for refusal, but rather to ensure that the issues were determined correctly under the legislative framework (at [6]).  

The Court clarified that the "[t]he power to approve a development application in part does not include a power to approve something which is 'materially different' to what is contained in the development application, other than the fact it is only part of what was applied for". A material change requires an evaluative judgement and is a matter of fact and degree (at [9]). 

Here, the proposed changes include a reduction in the area and number of demountable buildings for stages 2 to 4 of the proposed development, and various amendments to the size and configuration of vegetation areas along the southern and western side of the building group. The Court held as follows such that the changes were held not to require a minor change application. 

Reduction in demountable buildings 

The proposed change includes the removal of six demountable accommodation buildings in stage 2 and 12 demountable accommodation buildings from stages 3 and 4 (at [10]). The primary issue raised by the Council was that, whilst the omission of a complete stage falls within the concept of part approval, the partial omission of accommodation buildings within those stages does not (at [11]).  

The Court considered that the changes reflect the complete omission of demountable buildings, not any part of them, along with associated pathways to the south. This was not seen to affect the balance of the development, such that there was no mutual dependence between the omitted elements and remaining development (at [13]). 

The Court held that no minor change application is required, and that the development application could be validly approved in part (at [13]). 

Vegetation 

The Council submitted that the proposed changes to the vegetation areas amount to a minor change, on the basis that the site plans should be treated as the final detailed plans without reference to any alternative plans (at [15]). 

The Court considered that the changes to the vegetation areas, whilst a necessary component, are not central to the feasibility of the proposed development and can be dealt with during the detailed design stage. It was held that none of the changes to the site plans result in a materially different development application (at [21]). 

The Council contended that the proposed development should not be approved in its amended form, as it still results in an unacceptable impact. Various experts were called to give evidence on town planning, visual amenity and social issues (at [22]).  

The parties agreed that it was not a matter of whether the proposed development could be accommodated elsewhere or improved, rather the focus was on the acceptability of the proposal before the Court (at [23]). 

The primary concern raised by the Court relates to the height of the demountable buildings from ground level, as the dimensions were not included on the relevant plans. In the First Reasons, it was assumed that the building pads and heights would step down to accord with the slope of the land. At the same height, demountable buildings in the north eastern corner would sit on large stilts, creating an adverse visual impact when viewed from the fenceline. The Court suggested that limiting the height of stilts to approximately 30 centimetres would result in an appropriate outcome (at [34]). Further submissions were requested from the parties on this point.  

Ultimately, the Court was satisfied that the proposed part approval and amended plans reflect an acceptable impact (at [35]). However, the Court remained uncertain as to whether the necessary controls on the approval were best achieved by development conditions or further amended plans (at [36]). Further submissions were sought from the parties in this regard. 

At the time of the resumed hearing, the parties had largely agreed as to an appropriate set of development conditions to be imposed on any part approval that may be issued (at [37]). 

The Court suggested changes to the draft conditions to appropriately reflect the further amended plans, including limiting the height of the demountable accommodation buildings to 4.5 metres and ensuring the vegetation used will provide the necessary coverage and softening at an early time given the limited life of the use (at [44]).  

Further suggested changes included ensuring flexibility for the implementation of the Accommodation and Social Integration Plan as well as the Social Impact Management Plan.  

The appeal was allowed and the development application was approved in part, subject to an updated suite of development conditions and an appropriate draft order. The conditions and order are to be agreed by the parties or, failing agreement, determined after further submissions.