The case of Yi Shiu Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Anor; Burrell & Ors v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2026] QPEC 15 concerned an appeal by eligible submitters (Submitters) to the Planning and Environment Court (Court) against the decision of the Brisbane City Council (Council) to approve a development application for a material change of use to facilitate the redevelopment of a mixed use tower comprising 17 storeys, 119 units and podium centre activities and a basement carpark on premises at Spring Hill (proposed development).   

The Submitters own adjoining premises to the west and north of the subject premises and appeal in relation to the height, bulk and scale of the built form of the proposed development. The Submitter who owns the premises to the west also appeals in relation to the traffic access arrangements.   

The Court observed that the locality of Spring Hill includes varied built form in terms of building height, scale, age and architectural design, and recent development approvals given by the Council, once acted upon, will see an intense redevelopment of premises in the same block as the subject premises. The Court did not consider that the proposed development will dominate or be out of character with surrounding approved development and held that the access arrangements are not an unacceptable safety risk. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision to approve the development application subject to conditions. 

The issues in dispute required the Court to consider whether the proposed development is over-scaled, whether the access design is acceptable and whether the Court should exercise its discretion to approve the development application subject to conditions (at [113]). 

Whilst the Court considered all relevant provisions of the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (v. 28) (City Plan) in determining the issues in dispute, it held that the Spring Hill Neighbourhood Plan Code (SHNPC) has the greatest influence on its decision and that development complies with the SHNPC where it complies with the overall and performance outcomes of the code (at [112]).  

The Court's judgment includes a detailed analysis of the evidence and relevant assessment benchmarks in the context of the issues in dispute. The Court's key findings in respect of the issues are summarised in the following paragraphs. 

The Court interpreted "over-scaled" as being akin to "over-development", meaning that the proposed development is of a height, bulk and scale that is too big for the premises.   

The Court considered that the design of the proposed development achieves a strong visual delineation between the heritage of the existing Spring Hill Hotel, which will be partially refurbished, and the two podium façades which is an attractive contribution to the streetscape (at [26]). The Court accepted, based on the architectural evidence, that the proposed development will provide an attractive base to the building, facilitate height transition between the tower and street level, include an attractive and activated green edge along two street frontages, and integrate well with the retained hotel façade whilst keeping it a focal point at street level (at [31]). 

The Court accepted that the inclusion of transitioning recesses in the façade of the tower mitigate its bulk by breaking the tower into discernible elements and that the landscaping for the proposed development is attractive and will positively contribute to the streetscape (see [40] and [43]). 

The Submitters identified indicia going to height, bulk and scale alleged to present an over-scaled development of the premises, including impact on the character of the streetscape and local area, the amenity of adjoining premises and pronounced visual impact. However, the Court was not satisfied the proposed development meets any of the alleged indicia (see [254] to [255]).  

The Court was satisfied that the proposed development complies with the overall outcomes and the performance outcomes in the SHNPC relating to height, bulk and scale save for a noncompliance with the dimension for deep planting and the community expectations demonstrated by acceptable outcome AO1 of the SHNPC, the properly made submissions and the lay witness evidence that maximum building height for the subject premises is 10 storeys (see [129], [150], [159], [179], [204], [224], [231], [232], [242] and [252]). The noncompliance with community expectations was held not to be determinative because, under the City Plan, an acceptable solution is only one way of demonstrating compliance with the assessment benchmarks and the height exceedance will not result in any adverse town planning consequence (see [231] and [232]). 

The primary issue in respect of traffic is compliance with the sight distance requirements of the Transport, Access, Parking and Servicing Code (TAPS Code) and Planning Scheme Policy (TAPS Policy). 

The evidence before the Court demonstrated that if the premises adjoining the subject premises to the north is developed to its boundary, which is contemplated in the City Plan for premises within the Mixed Use Zone, the sight splay from the proposed development to the north along Little Edward Street will be closed off such that persons in service vehicles exiting the proposed development will not see pedestrians until the service vehicle is on the footpath. The Court held that this will see pedestrians bearing the onus to avoid conflict with service vehicles which is not an ideal outcome given that Little Edward Street is a high volume pedestrian route and that it is reasonable to assume cyclists and electric scooters also use that route (see [256] to [265]). 

Whilst the Court held that this outcome does not comply with performance outcome PO1(b) of the TAPS Code because compliance is not achieved with the standard for minimum sight splays and single access points in the TAPS Policy, it held the noncompliance is not deserving of significant weight for the reason that any risk to public safety is not unacceptable (see [270] to [274]).  

Proposed development meritorious 

The Court held that the proposed development is meritorious and substantially complies with the City Plan. The Court considered the noncompliances with the assessment benchmarks in respect of the access for service vehicles, deep planting and community expectations about the number of storeys permitted for the subject premises to be non-determinative having regard to the merit of the proposed development and the absence of adverse planning consequences and impacts (see [275] to [277]). 

Conclusion 

The Court gave the noncompliances with the City Plan limited weight in the exercise of its planning discretion having regard to the substantial compliances and allowed the appeal in part to approve the development application subject to the imposition of amended conditions (see [278] to [280]).