In the case of Beckdev Coolangatta Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2025] QPEC 15, the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) dismissed an appeal by Beckdev Coolangatta Pty Ltd (Beckdev) against the decision of the Gold Coast City Council (Council) to refuse a change application to increase the height of an approved mixed-use development in Coolangatta from 18 to 21 storeys. The Court held that the proposed change was not a “minor change” under the Planning Act 2016 because it would result in substantially different development.

Beckdev obtained a development approval in October 2023 for an 18-storey mixed-use tower on McLean Street, Coolangatta.

The approved height exceeded the 39 metre limit in the Gold Coast City Plan’s Building height overlay map but was supported under the uplift provisions of the Strategic Framework.

The development application required public notification and attracted 458 properly made submissions, which raised concerns about height, bulk and amenity, amongst other matters.

After receiving advice from Council that the proposed building height was not supported, the height of the proposed development was reduced from 23 storeys to 18 storeys, which was then approved.

Following the conclusion of the submitter appeal period, Beckdev lodged a change application which sought to increase the height of the proposed development from 18 to 21 storeys. The proposed change, which would also add 24 units to a total of 156 and increase the GFA from 14,923m² to 17,792m², was refused by the Council.

The Court identified three issues:

• Issue 1 – Whether the proposed change was a “minor change” under Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016.

• Issue 2 – If so, whether the change application should be approved or refused.

• Issue 3 – Whether the change application should be approved in the exercise of the Court's discretion.

The Court only determined Issue 1, finding it fatal to the change application.

The Court held that the change would result in substantially different development and therefore was not a minor change. Key reasons included:

• Visual impact: The additional three storeys and nine metres were visually appreciable from multiple viewing points and created a legibly greater building height.

• Planning context: Building height and bulk at the upper part of the building was a sensitive parameter given the significant exceedance of the level stated on the Building height overlay map and the strategic importance of height controls.

• New impacts: The change would introduce or exacerbate overshadowing impacts on an approved but unbuilt adjoining tower at 39 McLean Street, affecting upper-level apartments and communal areas.

Having regard to existing circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the proposed change did not result in a substantially different development. However, when looking forward and considering the impact the proposed change would have on the approved but unbuilt adjoining tower, the Court formed the view the proposed change would result in a substantially different development and was therefore not a minor change.

The Court dismissed the appeal on the limited basis that the change application did not seek a minor change to the development approval.

If you are considering a change application, seeking advice on building height controls, or navigating the minor change test under the Planning Act 2016, our Planning, Government, Infrastructure & Environment team can assist with strategic guidance and support.

• Height sensitivity: Where a development already exceeds height controls, further increases will be closely scrutinised.

• Minor change test: Even seemingly modest changes (three storeys) can fail the test if they alter building relationships or introduce new impacts.

• Process matters: A change that is not “minor” must proceed as an “other change” under section 82 of the Planning Act 2016, requiring public notification and appeal rights.

• Strategic framework relevance: The uplift provisions do not guarantee approval for additional height; they require a holistic assessment of design, amenity and character outcomes.