A council has green-lit a Queensland blueberry farm after it was contentiously revealed infrastructure work began on the site before local government approval was sought or granted.

The farmer began constructing the blueberry orchard on his 32-hectare property about May last year, clearing trees, digging dams, erecting greenhouses and planting blueberries.

A development application was lodged with the Toowoomba Regional Council in October to change the land use from "grazing native vegetation" to "intensive horticulture".

Satellite images show work continued after the application was lodged.

The developer's agricultural engineer told a Toowoomba Regional Council meeting on Wednesday that it was a case of "misadventure".

The comment came as neighbours of the development at Geham, west of Brisbane, asked the council to refuse the application.

After a three-hour meeting, during which council planners were grilled about the project and the timeline, the council voted eight to two to approve the development.

Mayor Geoff McDonald said deciding this was "difficult when we're almost retrospectively making it," but he went into the meeting seeking surety that concerns would be rectified and, after hearing the evidence, was comfortable voting in favour of it.

The remainder of the construction will likely be overseen by the council's operational works team.

Deputy Mayor Rebecca Vonhoff voted against the approval. During the meeting, she questioned the developer's agricultural engineer, Simon Lott, about what "misadventure" meant.

"The misadventure here is to kick off on a development believing that there was not a great need for compliance or for approvals and work commenced," Mr Lott said.

"Yes, it's back to front [and] things haven't been done in the order that they should have been done. That's accepted. Understood.

"Is that proper? No. Is the applicant remorseful? Yes."

Mr Lott said it was a rural development in a rural area and "in any other scenario, it would be "vanilla, ordinary".

"We have a rural producer [who] has multiple farms, which is not uncommon in rural Australia," he said.

"You can put up a rural building today [with] no application in some jurisdictions.

"It's been called in from compliance; it's been called in by agitation. That's fair enough.

"Can it be fixed? Absolutely. Can compliance be achieved? Absolutely. Can the conditions be met? Absolutely."

Cr Vonhoff did not mince her words.

"A bunch of us generalists have sat here for two hours and found a lot of inconsistencies in the information," she said.

"With the application of subject matter experts rigorously investigating this information, there might be much more clarity about the application, inconsistencies, the distances … so it does come down to that surety and that confidence, the veracity, the truth, the accuracy of the information.

"We have to be confident to support this and, I think, that any councillor who puts their hand up today to support this – it's an exercise in optimism over experience, and even that is being generous."

Councillor Trevor Manteufel also asked the developer's representative what would happen if the council refused the application, to which Mr Lott replied it would be escalated to a higher authority.

The farmer developer attended the meeting but did not address the councillors.

He declined to speak to the ABC.

A council planner told the meeting that the developer had been issued three enforcement notices but did not specify when these were issued.

In November, the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation investigated claims of illegally clearing mapped koala habitats and later fined the developer.

"We have issued this landholder — who intentionally cleared more than 4000 square metres of mapped habitat … to expand their business without approval — with a $14,375 fine and an enforcement notice requiring them to fully rehabilitate the decimated site," a spokesperson said.

"There is no excuse for illegally clearing mapped koala habitat, which threatens the future of these iconic, beloved, and protected species, but doing so for commercial gain is particularly unjustifiable."

Bryan Lyons, who runs a rural property next door, asked councillors at the meeting to refuse the application, citing concerns over tree clearing, traffic, dam safety, water quality and the precedent it would set.

"What a mess this has been," Mr Lyons said.

"We've seen evidence of non-compliance and three enforcement notices. The business has continued. They're still growing blueberries.

"This is not a normal development. This has been built, and now they're asking for approval."

Lucas Neal, who runs cattle on a property nearby, shared Mr Lyons' concerns.

"I'm pro-development, but just as long as it's being done the right way and through the right avenues, because if we want to do the same thing, we have to go through council and apply for approvals."

But a town planner said building without council approval wasn't necessarily illegal and compliance issues were often the result of a lack of knowledge.

Alex Steffan is the director of a town planning firm in Brisbane that advises clients on Queensland's zoning, land use and construction laws.

"These kinds of things happen all the time because the amount of things that require assessment and the complexities of those are just beyond the point of the general public understanding," Mr Steffan said.

He said the process for people caught committing a development offence was "quite friendly" in Queensland.

"Not to say, go ahead and do it, but what they'll generally do is issue you an education letter," he said.

"[When] they've done something unknowingly, councils aren't really in the business of trying to hunt people down and give people fines for ignorance."

Mr Steffan said while some individuals and companies knowingly began work without securing council approval, it was rare.