Development conditions are the mechanism that make a development acceptable in planning terms. They manage impacts, secure infrastructure, and reassure communities. But conditions are not limitless. If they overreach, they risk being struck down on appeal, leaving councils exposed on costs and undermining confidence in the system.
The statutory and judicial tests
The Planning Act 2016 continues the tradition set by earlier legislation: conditions must be relevant to the development, reasonably required, and not impose an unreasonable burden (s 65). These are the “three basic tests” that have long underpinned conditioning powers. They echo the principles first articulated in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578, and consistently applied by Queensland courts.
Beyond statute, judicial gloss adds further limits. Conditions must be imposed for a proper planning purpose, be certain in their terms, and not be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have imposed them. In short, they must be tethered to the planning purpose, proportionate to the change caused by the development, and workable in practice.
Two Queensland cases illustrate these boundaries in action.
Waverley Road Developments v Gold Coast City Council [2011] QPEC 59
In Waverley, the Council had assessed a large subdivision in Pimpama by reference to the East Coomera Sewerage Infrastructure Strategy (ECSIS). The problem was that ECSIS was not a planning scheme code but rather a strategy document allocating sewerage capacity by “zones”. The Court held that while ECSIS could be used as a source of factual information about the state of the network, it could not lawfully be treated as a parallel assessment benchmark. This distinction mattered. To condition an approval by reference to ECSIS rather than the planning scheme risked basing obligations on a document with no statutory footing. The case underlines that conditions must be tied back to a proper statutory source, not to an extraneous policy, however useful it may appear in practice.
Parsons v Redland City Council [2011] QPEC 62
In Parsons, a single dwelling approval on Macleay Island was subject to a condition requiring a drainage easement that sterilised 90% of the lot. While the Court accepted that easements are a legitimate tool to manage overland flow and protect council access, the breadth of this condition went too far. It imposed a serious fetter on development rights and effectively shifted the burden of council’s own stormwater management works onto the landowner.
The Court ordered the condition be pared back to a more modest easement that achieved the same flood management purpose without rendering the land unusable. Other conditions were also trimmed, such as a blanket restriction on future bedrooms, which the Court described as an unjustifiable imposition.
Lessons for planners
- Planning purpose – Conditions must serve a statutory planning purpose, not merely a convenient outcome (as in Waverley).
- Proportionality – Conditions must respond to the impacts of the development in a measured way, not overreach to solve wider infrastructure gaps (as in Parsons).
- Workability – Conditions must be certain and enforceable, not vague or impractically burdensome.
Conditions secure the balance between development and community interest. But as Waverley and Parsons show, they must operate within lawful limits. Planners and councils who keep those limits in mind will not only reduce legal risk but also maintain public confidence that the system is fair, proportionate, and principled.