Our Planning and Environment team has helped secure a win for one of our developer clients (Ingenia Communities – The Applicant) who specialises in developing a range of lifestyle community developments and holiday parks.

In a decision handed down by the Land and Environment Court on 16 March 2021, a local council’s refusal to grant development consent for an application seeking alterations and additions to a caravan park, which included an increase to the number of long-term sites offered, was successfully overturned on appeal.

Proposed development

In summary, the Applicant sought approval for the following development:

• demolition of certain structures across an existing caravan park site; reconfiguration of the site’s layout to provide 91 long term accommodation sites (69 new sites and 22 existing long-term sites) and 13 short term accommodation sites (12 caravan sites and 1 camping site); upgrade works to an existing community facility; visitor parking, car wash and waste facilities, associated earthworks, stormwater control, site servicing, landscaping and fencing.

Contentions in dispute

The council as the relevant consent authority determined to refuse the Applicant’s development application for a number of reasons, including contentions relating to the following matters:

• Permissibility of the proposal;
• Consistency of the proposal with the relevant zone objectives;
• Contamination;
• Access to services and facilities;
• Displacement of tourist accommodation;
• Amenity impacts;
• Displacement of long-term residents.

During the hearing of the matter and in the event that the Court determined to approve the Applicant’s development application, the council also sought to impose a number of onerous conditions on the consent which were opposed by the Applicant.

Outcome

Ultimately the Court ruled in favour of the Applicant in relation to all matters in contention. Favouring the Applicant’s submissions, amongst other matters the Court determined the proposed development to be a permissible use, consistent with the objectives of the relevant zone and the site suitable for its intended use following remediation. Furthermore, in relation to those contested conditions of consent, the Court upheld the Applicant’s submissions and declined to impose these on the consent granted.

The Court’s decision in this case can be viewed here.