A cluster of decisions in the first half of 2026 addressed the assessment of character, amenity and height, particularly in Brisbane’s traditional building character areas and on the Gold Coast. They repay attention by anyone advising on infill and demolition, because each turns on the evaluative judgments the Court makes for itself on the primary evidence.
Two demolition cases reached opposite results on their facts. In Woodhall v Brisbane City Council [2026] QPEC 12, Devereaux SC CJDC dismissed an appeal against the refusal of demolition in a segmented Traditional building character overlay, holding that the relevant “section” of the street could reasonably be defined as the subject house and its immediate neighbours, each of which had traditional character, so that the applicable acceptable outcome was not met. In Sparrow v Rockhampton Regional Council [2026] QPEC 5, by contrast, Kefford DCJ allowed the demolition of an intact 1864 dwelling, holding that although the house presently made a meaningful and positive contribution to the street, the likely lawful development of the adjoining lot would obscure it, so that the contribution would be lost in any event. The vacant neighbouring lot was described as giving “the impression of a missing tooth in a smile,” and the realistic future of adjacent land proved decisive.
Amenity and height were treated as evaluative questions for the Court on the primary material. In Harrison v Brisbane City Council [2026] QPEC 25, Williamson KC DCJ confirmed the refusal of a dwelling to be raised, repositioned and extended at Teneriffe, holding that “overbearing” built form falls within the scheme’s defined concept of amenity and that a sheer western wall over the recreation area of the neighbour to the west was a significant and undue impact. In relation to a different neighbour, to the south, the Court accepted that that neighbour’s own defensive design, a dwelling “designed to turn its back to the site,” neutralised what would otherwise have been an unacceptable impact, but it declined to save the application by conditions because it is not the Court’s role to redesign a proposal.
In Yi Shiu Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2026] QPEC 15, the same judge rejected the submitters’ case for refusal of a seventeen-storey mixed-use tower in Spring Hill, finding the development substantially compliant and the residual non-compliances not consequential, so that the appeals would be allowed only in part and the development approved subject to amended conditions. His Honour delivered a pointed warning that an expert who withholds known conditions or solutions until oral evidence fails to assist the Court. On the Gold Coast, Brown v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QPEC 29 confirmed that a building-height uplift under the strategic framework can justify exceeding a mapped height, Kefford DCJ approving a 31.8 metre building against a 23 metre map because the qualitative uplift outcomes were met. The decision is also notable for recognising that parts of the earlier Gold Coast height authorities are now qualified by Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QCA 136.
The common thread is that a quantitative exceedance of height is not determinative where it produces no tangible amenity impact or where the scheme’s own uplift criteria are satisfied, and that character and amenity are ultimately matters for the Court’s own assessment of the built form in its actual setting. For developers, design quality and a careful response to the receiving environment carry real weight, and an extant approval does not license exacerbating a known impact. For submitters and councils, a height exceedance is best challenged by demonstrating a genuine, tangible impact rather than the exceedance alone, and expert evidence is most persuasive when every known condition or solution is disclosed rather than held back.
This publication is general in nature. Its content is current at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and you should always seek legal advice based on your particular circumstances prior to making any decisions relating to matters covered by this publication. Certain details may have been sourced from external references, and we cannot assure the accuracy or timeliness of such information.