PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D92 OF 2025 – APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DWELLING HOUSE 58 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH (Item 7.4 Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 November 2025) · ATTACHMENT 3 - OFFICER'S ORIGINAL REPORT

               5.     CONSULTATION
               5.1. Referral Agencies
               The application was referred to SARA under the following trigger:
               •    Schedule 9, Part 3, Division 1, Table 1 (Planning Regulation 2017) - Building works seaward
                    of a coastal building works
               A SARA referral agency response (2404-39910 SRA) was given, with conditions, on 10 September
               2024, which was prior to the application being made to Council. The conditions included reference
               the SARA approved plans, provisions for erosion and sediment control and the submission of “As
               Constructed Drawings” within 20 business days of the works being completed.
               It is noted that since this referral agency response was given, there has been changes made to
               the submitted Coastal Hazard Assessment reporting, because of the peer review that was
               completed by BMT.
               It is also noted that the original Coastal Hazards Assessment was completed by Royal
               HaskoningDHV, and this report referenced PA3570-RHD-XX-ZZ-RP-Z-0001 and dated 18 March
               2024 was approved by Paul Prenzler. As part of the peer review of this report, a new Coastal
               Hazard Assessment report referenced 252010-MN-RP-CO-0001A_58 Seaview Tce CHA Report
               and dated 18 July 2025 was prepared by Moffatt & Nichol (M & N report) and approved Paul
               Prenzler, who since October 2024 has worked for Moffatt & Nichol.
               As part of the peer review completed by BMT of these reports, the dune toe location was updated
               based on November 2024 aerial imagery and there was a reassessed Erosion Prone Area (85m
               from the dune toe at 2.3m AHD).
               Furthermore, the peer review indicated that the development did not comply with PO2 and has not
               demonstrated compliance with PO5 and PO6 of State Code 8 - Coastal development and tidal
               works.
               Considering the conclusions made by BMT, as part of their peer review, a change to the referral
               agencies assessment and response may be required.
               5.2. Internal Council Referrals
               Not applicable.
               6.     CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
               The proposal included significant non-compliances with the Performance Outcomes PO1 and PO3
               of the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code.
               The proposal also did not comply or demonstrate compliance with the Performances Outcomes
               PO2, PO5 and PO6 of State Code 8 - Coastal development and tidal works.
               The report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.




                                                                                                   Page 12 of 15

Document Set ID: 23417365
Version: 15, Version Date: 13/08/2025