McCullough Robertson’s Planning and Environment team recently acted for Noosa Shire Council in a conditions appeal in the Planning & Environment Court proceeding Gympie Terrace Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council [2026] QPEC 24. We successfully secured an important outcome on conditions relating to onsite waste collection for a mixed-use development in Noosaville.
The decision provides practical guidance on when development conditions will satisfy the statutory tests for lawfulness, reasonableness and necessity, particularly in busy urban and tourist contexts.
Council had approved a mixed use commercial and residential development on land in Noosaville with three street frontages, being Gympie Terrace, Thomas Street and Albert Street.
Two conditions remained in dispute at the hearing:
Council argued that Condition 61 was consistent with the Waste Management Code and Business Activities Code, and that both conditions could be justified in the exercise of discretion even if they were not strictly necessary to achieve compliance with all assessment benchmarks.
The developer accepted that both conditions were relevant but argued they were an unreasonable imposition and not reasonably required in the circumstances of the development and the locality.
Her Honour, Judge McDonnell, adopted and applied the Court of Appeal’s observations in Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2025] QCA 207 at [23]-[25] as to the construction of the power to impose conditions. Her Honour emphasised that the key focus is on whether a condition is reasonably capable of being regarded as related to the purpose for which the authority’s function is exercised, being, in short ‘the implementation of planning policy’.
Her Honour also expressly adopted principles from Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor (No. 2) [2025] QPEC 25 concerning the lawfulness of conditions and the proper application of the ‘not an unreasonable imposition’ and ‘reasonably required’ tests.
Against that framework, the Court considered whether each disputed condition satisfied the statutory requirements and should be imposed in the exercise of discretion.
The developer argued that Condition 61 (onsite refuse collection using bulk bins) was an unreasonable imposition and not reasonably required, on the basis that it would not increase demand on kerbside services, would introduce noise impacts, and was not necessary or expressly required by the assessment benchmarks.
Her Honour rejected these submissions. Evidence from Council’s waste contractor, Cleanaway, showed that onsite collection using a rear‑lift vehicle reduces the number of bins needing collection, is quicker, more efficient, and safer because it occurs in a controlled environment, and is the only way to provide cardboard recycling under the existing contract.
Her Honour held that the Waste Management Code is directed to safe, efficient, and convenient waste management, free from environmental nuisance. While the Noosa Planning Scheme does not mandate onsite collection in every case, provisions including AO1.2 and AO3.2 envisage onsite collection and emphasise safety, efficiency and convenience.
Importantly, it was accepted that onsite waste collection met PO13 and AO13.1 of the Waste Management Code by maintaining and enhancing visual amenity. Incorporating daily bins and bin collection into the visual aesthetic of Thomas Street would detract from the positive streetscape outcome otherwise achieved by the development, whereas locating collection areas onsite avoided a ‘parade of bins’ in the public realm.
Having regard to the three street frontages and the proposed ingress/egress design, the Court accepted that kerbside collection would create potential conflicts with cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles, whereas onsite collection could be provided safely and efficiently within the site.
Her Honour found that onsite collection could be readily accommodated through detailed design, would not cause unacceptable noise impacts and protected the visual amenity of Thomas Street while ensuring contemporary waste management standards for the new mixed‑use development.
Accordingly, Her Honour concluded that Condition 61 was relevant, not an unreasonable imposition and reasonably required and would be imposed in the exercise of discretion.
Her Honour declined to uphold Council’s version of Condition 23, with weight being placed on the following:
In that context, it was found that Council’s version of Condition 23 went further than necessary to address noise amenity and did not reflect the existing and anticipated level of activity in the area. It was therefore an unreasonable imposition and not reasonably required, and would not be imposed in the exercise of discretion even if technically lawful.
Instead, the developer’s alternative condition was preferred, which retained a prohibition on servicing before 6am but otherwise allowed service deliveries to align with the activity levels anticipated in the planning scheme and the lawful operation of the onsite food and drink outlets.
The decision confirms that:
For councils, developers and practitioners, the case provides useful guidance on:
If you would like assistance in reviewing proposed or imposed conditions on a development approval, please contact our Planning & Environment team for assistance.
