Original source · versioned page text
Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. 2697 Of 2025 – Application For A Material Change Of Use For A Dwelling House 4 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach · Attachment 3 - Officer'S Original Report
• reference to the SARA approved plans;
• provisions for the works to only use clean materials free from water contaminants
• erosion and sediment control measures;
• the requirement to submit “As Constructed Drawings” within 20 business days of the works
being completed; and
• acid sulphate soils provisions, including the requirement for certification confirming affect
soil has been neutralised and contained.
5.2. Internal Council Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers for review and/or comment:
• Development Engineer, Development Assessment
The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineers for assessment. As part of their
review, concerns were raised regarding the proposed construction of private retaining walls within
the road reserve. Further information was requested to clarify the potential impacts of these works
on existing vegetation located within the road verge.
5.3. Other Referrals
The application was referred to BMT for an independent peer review of the Coastal Hazard
Assessment report submitted by Royal HaskoningDHV (RHDHV).
• BMT provided a fee proposal to undertake the peer review on behalf of Council.
• This fee proposal was forwarded to the applicant for authorisation; however, during the
period in which the application was subject to a current period suspension (Decision
Period), the applicant did not return a signed copy of the fee proposal.
• As a result, the peer review was not commissioned, and no formal assessment of the
Coastal Hazard Assessment was undertaken by BMT. The only input provided by BMT was
an informal summary of discussions between BMT’s Coastal Engineer and the Coastal
Engineer from Moffat & Nichol (M&N).
• This informal summary of discussions that included preliminary advice was conveyed via
email. This correspondence, dated 18/08/2025 (uploaded to ECM and marked up), was
copied to Council’s Development Planner and highlighted an inconsistency with the
selected position of the toe of the frontal dune in the RHDHV Coastal Hazard Assessment
report compared to an aerial image captured around the same date.
• It was highlighted by BMT in this email that this inconsistency has a notable impact on the
extent of mapping of the erosion prone area across the site.
CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The proposed development was 3 storeys by definition in parts of the built form and does not meet
PO7 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code.
The proposed development exceeds the allowable site cover did not meet PO8 of the Low Density
Residential Zone Code.
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 16 of 18
Document Set ID: 24048873
Version: 6, Version Date: 27/08/2025
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.