Anglican Church's Prayers Unanswered: St Francis Theological College Loses Battle Against Brewery in Brisbane

In the heart of Brisbane’s inner city, a unique legal dispute has emerged, pitting tradition against industrial progress. The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane, representing the Anglican Church, was engaged in a lengthy legal battle with Brisbane City Council and Lion-Beer, Spirits and Wine Pty Ltd, the iconic XXXX brewery operator. The dispute centered on the brewery’s plan to install three 40,000-litre ethanol storage tanks on its Milton site, a move that raised serious safety concerns from the church, whose St Francis Theological College sits adjacent to the brewery grounds.

The Brisbane City Council had approved the brewery’s plan in February 2024, aiming to support Lion’s expansion into ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages beyond beer. However, the church challenged this approval in the Planning and Environment Court, arguing that the ethanol tanks posed an unacceptable risk to public safety and property, particularly due to the potential for a tank chamber explosion.

The church’s legal team contended that even by the City Plan’s own quantitative risk criteria, the explosion risk was unacceptable and warranted refusal of the development application. The land in question lies within a historic Brisbane suburb characterized by a mix of commercial, industrial, residential, and community facilities. The church’s property includes heritage-listed buildings such as Old Bishopsbourne, the former residence of Brisbane’s first Anglican Bishop, and the Chapel of the Holy Spirit, alongside college facilities and residential townhouses.

The brewery proposed placing the ethanol tanks near the western boundary of its site, approximately 7.7 metres from the nearest church building. The tanks, standing between 9 and 10 metres tall, would be subject to stringent safety and risk management measures.

After extensive expert analysis and testimony from all parties, the court ruled in favour of the brewery. Judge Nicole Kefford DCJ found that Lion and its consultants had a proper understanding of the nature and extent of the risks involved, the likely impacts, and the relevant Australian Standards and risk management procedures. The judge noted that the tank chamber’s design features exceeded minimum Australian Standard requirements and that the development could proceed responsibly with conditions to protect community interests.

The court’s decision acknowledged that while risk elimination is impossible, the minimisation of risk to an acceptable level is the key standard. The development will be subject to conditions, including certification by a dangerous goods consultant and ongoing compliance with safety protocols. The case is scheduled for further review in July 2025 to finalise these conditions.

A fascinating aspect of this judgment lies in its legal balancing of industrial development and community safety within an established urban context. The Court rigorously applied the principle that risk cannot be entirely eliminated but must be minimised to a level that is "as low as reasonably practicable" (ALARP), as mandated by the Planning Act 2016 and supported by the City Plan and associated policies. Importantly, the judgment highlights that compliance with Australian Standards and the adoption of multi-layered, sophisticated risk mitigation measures can justify approval of potentially hazardous developments, even when located near sensitive uses such as heritage-listed community facilities. The Court’s detailed evaluation of expert evidence, including the rejection of a precautionary approach demanding absolute risk elimination, reflects a pragmatic and evidence-based judicial approach to planning law, emphasising that the presence of risk alone does not mandate refusal but requires careful, fact-specific assessment of likelihood, consequence, and mitigation. This judgment thus exemplifies the complex interplay between urban industrial growth, heritage preservation, and public safety within contemporary planning jurisprudence.

This ruling comes amid the church’s own plans to redevelop its Milton site into an upmarket retirement village, featuring 76 independent living units designed by Cox Architecture and Urbis. The development aims to preserve heritage elements while providing modern amenities and community spaces.

The case highlights the complex balance between industrial growth, community safety, heritage preservation, and urban development. It speaks to the importance of risk assessment and transparent planning processes in managing such competing interests.

For the Anglican Church, the court’s ruling represents a setback in their efforts to block the brewery’s ethanol tank installation, but their vision for the retirement village remains a hopeful prospect for the site’s future.

As Brisbane continues to evolve, this case sets a precedent for how industrial developments and community concerns are navigated in a growing cityscape. One can only hope that in the future, the theological college and the brewery can find common ground... perhaps over a pint or two, proving that even in matters of faith and fermentation, there's always room for a little spirit(s) of cooperation.