QLD: Meet Queensland’s new planning authority for apartments… your neighbours.

In Macrossan House [2026] QBCCMCmr 73 (10 March 2026) an Adjudicator has upheld a committee decision to refuse to provide an owner’s consent (of the body corporate as owner of the common property) to the making of a development application to change the use (and layout) of an owner’s Lots from commercial to residential.

This is despite the ultimate form, layout and therefore consent requirements to the actual undertaking of the development not yet being known, because the development application had not yet been lodged, let alone the development having been approved and the development approval conditions being known.

Bodies corporate can now effectively veto much needed redevelopment in Queensland, acting as another layer of the ‘development approval process’ without the proposed development ever reaching the relevant assessment authority (e.g. the local authority), let alone the inside of a real court (such as on appeal to the Planning & Environment Court).

Bodies corporate and their committees are not qualified to assess the planning merits of a given development proposal and should not be able to stymie the making of development applications, let alone have a de facto power of veto.

Rather, bodies corporate, do, and should, have a say and be the decision maker, after a development proposal has been assessed and approved, and the developer then needs the body corporate’s permission under the BCCM Act, for changes to the lots or common property which are regulated under that Act.

Developers should be permitted to ‘get past go’ by being able to at least lodge a development application of whatever nature they desire as long as it primarily relates to their Lots, and only peripherally involves common property. It is, or should be, up to the developer to accept the risks of obtaining a development approval which may not be able to be used, because their body corporate could later reasonably refuse to give consent to what the development approval conditions require, such as a unanimous resolution to transfer some common property to the developer.

Developers inside community titles schemes now face the added challenge, to be able to lodge a development application, of having to overcome their neighbour’s objections to what is then a hypothetical development only, and where the merits of the development, or even the community need for it, could be trumped on the basis of NIMBY objections.

Bugden Allen can help you navigate the implications of the Macrossan decision.

ⓗ humans only; no AI was used to create this content

This post appears in Strata News #790.

Michael Kleinschmidt
Bugden Allen
E: michael.kleinschmidt@bagl.com.au
P: 07 5406 1280