The judgment has caught landholders, developers and pastoralists off guard. They have commonly assumed until now that the Category X designation gave an automatic right to clear. Loading The ruling raises the stakes for environmental protection in Queensland, where land clearing is already a contentious political issue. Category X land is commonly covered by non-remnant vegetation and considered to be of low value, but can also incorporate habitat for endangered species, waterways and wetlands. Some 33 million hectares of Queensland's total 173 million hectares is designated Category X, according to the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, and almost half a million hectares of the coastal south-east between the Gold Coast and Noosa.

No figures are available on how much has been cleared, because although landholders are meant to keep records of what Category X land they've stripped of vegetation, they are not obliged to inform authorities. It is also not known how much Category X land lies in areas covered by local government planning schemes. One senior local government source said that had the judgment gone the other way, it could have permanently weakened councils' abilities to enforce local rules intended to protect habitat for koalas and other endangered fauna and flora. "The judgment is huge," the source said. The development industry is already gearing up to fight the ruling. “This (the court's ruling) is contrary to the widely held view based on government documents and publications that Category X vegetation can be cleared ‘as of right’," law firm Cooper Grace Ward said in a statement to clients.

The firm represented the plaintiff in the case, developer Fairmont, which brought an initial case against Moreton Bay Regional Council in the Planning and Environment Court over a residential scheme at Morayfield, north of Brisbane. Fairmont lost, then appealed, resulting in this month's ruling. Loading In response to questions from Brisbane Times, Cooper Grace Ward indicated Fairmont might seek leave to appeal the decision in the High Court. Fairmont and the council did not respond to requests for comment. Land clearing is covered by federal, state and local government rules. But until now, landholders have looked mainly to the state rules where land was designated Category X under Queensland's Vegetation Management Act. Local councils have powers to impose their own clearing rules via planning schemes and regulations but have lacked resources, and in some cases, the will, to enforce them.

In light of the court ruling, landholders are being warned to reconsider their clearing plans with regard to local government rules and told they risk prosecution over clearing work already carried out. “This decision has wide-ranging implications for landholders clearing not only Category X vegetation, but other clearing categorised as exempt,” Cooper Grace Ward said. “Any landholders, including developers and pastoralists, who have cleared vegetation (including for operational works) may have breached the provisions of a planning scheme and risk prosecution for the offence of unlawful clearing.” The Property Council of Australia, which represents developers and landholders, said it would lobby the state government for legislation to reverse the effect of the decision. Queensland executive director Chris Mountford said the decision "puts doubt over a core assumption underpinning development activity in Queensland".

He said his organisation would work with the state government to ensure "clearing within low ecological value Category X areas can continue to be carried out without development approval, as per the state’s long running advice to landowners". "If this requires legislative amendments, the Property Council will be strongly advocating for this outcome," Mr Mountford said. The Local Government Association of Queensland, which represents councils, did not respond to questions. Environmental organisations welcomed the ruling but claimed local governments had a poor record of enforcing existing rules. “We hope that local governments will revise their local planning schemes and take action to enforce illegal clearing in their region where this may have slipped past them,” Queensland Environmental Defenders Office solicitor Revel Pointon said.

“Tree clearing is too often not given serious enough attention. Once a tree is gone, it’s gone, along with the habitats the tree provided to animals and birds. “Auditing the legality of clearing after trees and habitat have been cleared is not adequate.” Andrew Picone, nature campaigner at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said: “Local government planning protects local character and environmental assets including waterways, wetlands and soils. Of course landholders need to have regard to local planning schemes, it is for the benefit of the community.”