Chang v Laidley Shire Council

Local government – Subdivision of land - Section 5.4.2 of the Integrated Planning Act 1977 (Q) ("the Act") afforded a statutory entitlement to compensation to those affected by a change in planning scheme - Appellants applied to respondent Council for approval for reconfiguration of land - Planning provisions did not permit proposed reconfiguration - Earlier provisions would have permitted reconfiguration - Whether appellants entitled to compensation on account of diminution in value of land brought about by inability to reconfigure - Whether appellants had "accrued right" or "accrued entitlement" to compensation.

Statutes – Interpretation - Meaning and effect of s 3.2.1 of the Act - Section 3.2.1 prescribed the method for applying for development approval - Proposed development was refused on the basis that it was contrary to the draft regulatory provisions - Whether development application that was contrary to the draft regulatory provisions was a "properly made application" - Whether s 3.2.1 should be read down in conformity with the rule that statutes are not to be construed as interfering with vested interests unless that purpose is manifest - Whether a clear indication of the legislative purpose to abolish the right to compensation was required and was manifest.

Words and phrases – "accrued interest", "accrued right", "acquired right", "development application (superseded planning scheme)", "injurious affection", "properly made application", "retrospectivity".

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Q) – s 20.

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Q) – Pts 2, 5A, ss 3.2.1, 5.4.2.

Local Government Act 1936 (Q) – ss 33(10).

Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (Q).