Council archive · source document
P & E Court Appeal No 344 of 2009 Judgement 5/07/13 - Hofmann · 152006.1999
i
i
ecoaccess
emiromontaf llamcos andpormlts
Notice
Concurrence Agency Response
• The Environmental Protection Agency is recognised as a concurrence agency under the Integrated
Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1998 for coastal management, other than amenity and aesthetic
significance or value.
The Activity for which this development approval is Issued Is simply a restatement of the activity as prescribed in
the legislation at the time of issuing this development approval. Where (here is any conflict between the above
description of the Activity for which this development approval is issued and the conditions as specified in this
development approval as to the scale, intensity or manner of carrying out of the Activity, then such conditions
prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
This development approval authorises the Activity. It does not authorise environmental harm unless a
concurrence agency condition within this development approval explicitly authorises that harm. Where there is
no condition or the development approval is silent on a matter, the lack of a condition or silence shall not be
construed as authorising harm.
As part of the concurrence agency response the following development conditions are to be attached to the
development approval:
Conditions:
Agency Interest: Coastal
1. The works must be undertaken in accordance with the plan listed below.
Plan:
• Proposal Plan M1776-02C prepared by Jones Flint & Pike dated 21 September 2007.
Additional information for applicants:
It is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 that if the owner or occupier of this site
becomes av/are a Notifiable Activity (as defined under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994)
is being carried out on this land or that the land has been affected by a hazardous contaminant, they must,
within twenty two (22) business days after becoming aware the activity is being carried out, give notice to the
Environmental Protection Agency. A list of Notifiable Activities is provided within Schedule 2 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1994.
This concurrence response pursuant to the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and assessed against section 104
oHh<!}-Geaet&l-ProteQtion-and-Management-Aet-1-995-doe8-mi-remQve-\;he-med-\Q-ob[a\n-ar\y-1u?{her
approvals for this development wiilcFTrnay be re^uirecTpursuanffolhis or ofher legislation, both~&tate and
Commonwealth. Applicants are advised to check with all relevant statutory authorities for such approvals as
may be required.
Additional information forth© Assessment Manager:
The Environmental Protection Agency referral agency jurisdiction for the development application is confined
to that aspect of the application involving the triggers identified in the response. EPA has no referral
agency jurisdiction in relation to other aspects of the development application.
in this regard it should be noted that the State Coastal Management Plan 2001 and SEQ Regional Coastal
Management Plan 2006 which, for the purposes of making a statutory decision, has the same effect as a
state planning policy. The assessment manager is required to give due consideration to the relevant State
planning policies when deciding the application.
Version 1.1
QueenslandGovernment
vEnylroflhwnfal Protection Agency Environmental Protocllon Agency
Viww.ej)a.qld.gov.au ABN 87 221 168 786 Queensland Paiks and Wildlife Servko
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
P & E Court Appeal No 344 of 2009 Judgement 5/07/13 - HofmannRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 1.9 MB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.