The case of Roycorp Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2025] QPEC 4 concerned an appeal by Roycorp Pty Ltd (Applicant) to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against the decision of the Brisbane City Council (Council) to refuse a development application for a multiple dwelling (Proposed Development) in respect of vacant land at 141 Fursden Road, Carina (Subject Site).

The Proposed Development comprises 85 dwellings in the form of attached townhouses and includes an affordable housing component (see [2] and [3]). Under the relevant planning scheme, being the Brisbane City Council City Plan 2014 (version 26) (Planning Scheme), the Proposed Development is impact assessable (see [2] and [9]).

The Court dismissed the appeal and refused the Proposed Development on the basis that the permanent loss of community facilities zoned land, intended for the benefit of the whole community, could not be justified in the circumstances (see [40] and [41]).

The Subject Site, spanning 1.357 hectares, is located in the community facilities zone within the health care purposes zone precinct and forms part of a larger similarly zoned parcel of land in an otherwise predominantly residential area (at [4]). It adjoins a residential aged care facility and Brisbane State High School's sporting facilities (at [4]). There is also an existing development approval for a retirement facility and health care services over the Subject Site (at [4]). The affordable housing component of the Proposed Development is to comprise nine affordable dwellings out of the 85 total proposed dwellings (at [6]).

The Applicant argued that there is a need for multiple dwellings in the locality and, as a result, the Proposed Development offers community benefits (at [2]). The Council alleged that the Proposed Development is non-compliant with the Planning Scheme on the basis that there is a clear forward planning strategy within it to protect and preserve community facilities uses into the future (at [23]). The Applicant disputed the allegations of non-compliance and argued that the Planning Scheme is much more flexible, in that relevant provisions within it support the Proposed Development (at [23]).

The Court considered the relevant provisions in the Planning Scheme, namely the strategic framework and community facilities zone code, and the expert evidence given by the parties’ town planners. The Council's town planner stressed the importance of categorising community facilities zoned land as a finite and valuable resource, and in need of protection for the benefit of the whole community (at [35]). The Applicant's town planner admitted that in the Planning Scheme there are some "strong statements" about ensuring community facilities zoned land is used for that zoned purpose (at [36]). The Court determined that "…each of the land use strategies contemplates the ongoing use of land allocated for community facilities remaining available for use for community facilities" and that "…all uses contemplated for the [community] [facilities] [zone] are to be community facilities or ancillary uses" (at [24] and [32]).

The Court also considered whether the Proposed Development is appropriate for the health care purposes zone precinct and determined that "[t]he only identified residential uses are for occupation by the elderly, the young or people with disabilities, such as a residential care facility or a retirement facility" (at [26]).

Therefore, the Court found non-compliance with the abovementioned relevant provisions within the Planning Scheme in respect of the Proposed Development.

The Court considered the Applicant's argument that the Proposed Development offers community benefits by providing more housing, including affordable housing, and the expert evidence given by the parties economists. The Applicant's economist and the Council's economist both acknowledged the housing supply shortage in Brisbane and "…community benefit associated with the [P]roposed [D]evelopment delivering additional housing" but "…agreed that this demand is capable of being met by the [P]lanning [S]cheme in its present form" (at [34]).

The Court concluded that "…[nine] affordable dwellings in the context of 85 dwellings on the land, does not outweigh the permanent alienation of the land for the provision of community facilities in the future" and consequently "…there is … no warrant for justifying the [P]roposed [D]evelopment on the basis of planning need where it is in significant conflict with the provisions of the planning scheme identified above" (see [37] and [38]).

The Court dismissed the appeal and refused the Proposed Development on the basis that the permanent loss of community facilities zoned land intended for the benefit of the whole community could not be justified in the circumstances (see [40] and [41]).

The Court's decision highlights that whilst the housing supply shortage is significant, it does not trump all other planning strategies. In this case, the benefit to the whole community as a result of protecting community facilities zoned land could not be trumped by the delivery of nine affordable dwellings.