Original source · versioned page text
Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. 2698 Of 2025 – Application For A Material Change Of Use For A Dwelling House 6 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach · Attachment 3 - Officer'S Original Report
ATTACHMENT 3 - MCU24/0130 - ORIGINAL - OFFICER'S REPORT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT DELEGATED REPORT Author Development Planner, Matthew Pinese Development Assessment APPLICATION DETAILS Application No. MCU24/0130 Applicant BV Investments P/L Proposal Material Change of Use - Dwelling house (Coastal Protection) Properly Made Date 14 October 2024 Information Request Date 11 November 2024 Information Response Date 11 February 2025 Decision Due Date 20 August 2025 Report Reviewed & Patrick Murphy Finalised By 27.08.2025 PROPERTY DETAILS Property Address 6 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach Qld 4567 RP Description Lot 785 on RP48111 Land Area 604m² Existing Use of Land Pool associated with dwelling house STATUTORY DETAILS SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint Zone Low density residential zone Precinct Not applicable Local Plan Area Coastal Communities Overlays Land Subject to Acid Sulphate Soils - Above 5 metres AHD to 20 metres AHD (Area 2) Coastal Protection - Coastal Building Line (State Government) - Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Landslide Hazard Document Set ID: 24062772 24048874 Version: 1, 10,Version VersionDate: Date:27/08/2025 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.
Full text of the other 19 pages
Page 2
- Moderate Hazard Area
Assessment Type Code
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks approval for a Material Change of Use - Dwelling house (Coastal Protection).
The locality and proposal plan are included below.
Figure 1 – Locality
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Page 2 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 3
Page 3 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 4
Figure 3 – Floor Plans
Page 4 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 5
Page 5 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 6
Figure 4 – Elevations
2. APPLICATION BACKGROUND
The decision for this application was originally due on 18 March 2025. The applicant stopped the
current period (Decision Period) several times for this development application between 6 March
2025 up until 18 August 2025 and used 107 days of the 130 available under the DA Rules. No
further stop to current periods were enacted by the applicant before the 18 August 2025 and the
decision period recommenced and was due by 20 August 2025.
3. SITE DETAILS
3.1. Site History
Town Planning Consent (TPC 1785) – Additional storey to existing dwelling in sand dune problem
area.
Page 6 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 7
3.2. Site Description
Site & Locality Description
Road Frontage 15m to Arakoon Crescent
Existing Significant Vegetation N/A
Topography The site falls downhill towards the seaward boundary with a
change in site levels between 29 metres AHD at the front
boundary and 18 metres AHD at the rear boundary.
Surrounding Land Uses Existing detached houses and vacant land (North)
Existing detached houses (South)
Vegetated coastal dune zoned Environmental Management
and Conservation and the beach (East)
Existing detached houses (West)
Within the street and surrounding area there are existing
detached houses in the Low Density Residential Zone
4. ASSESSMENT
4.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
• State Planning Policy;
• South East Queensland Regional Plan;
• Planning Regulation 2017; and
• Noosa Plan 2020 (25 September 2020).
4.2. Noosa Plan 2020
The following codes from the Noosa Plan 2020 are applicable to this development:
• Low Density Residential Zone Code;
• Coastal Communities Local Plan Code;
• Low Density Housing Code;
• Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code
• Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code
• Landslide Hazard Overlay Code
• Works Codes
The subject site is located in Sunshine Beach and is zoned Low Density Residential. The proposed
use is identified as a consistent use within the zone and is required to follow a code assessable
application process.
The pertinent issues arising out of the assessment are discussed below:
Summary of Proposed Development Statistics
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Building height
• storeys 2 storeys max 3 storeys (by definition) X
Page 7 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 8
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
• metres 8 metres 8 metres
Site cover For a building of 2 storeys - Lower Floor – 35.7% X
50% for one of the storeys; Ground Floor - 48.5%
and
Upper Floor - 23.5%
30% for the other storey; or
40% for both storeys
Gross floor area 500m² max 490m²
Plot ratio N/A N/A N/A
Boundary setbacks
Ground Floor Plan / up to 4.5m
Frontage 6.0 metres min 4.4 metres X
Side (north) 1.5 metres min 1.5 metres
Side (south) 1.5 metres min 2.1 metres
Rear 6.0 metres min 10.8 metres
Upper Floor Plan/ 4.5m – 7.5m
Frontage 6.0 metres min 5.2 metres X
Side (north) 2.0 metres min 2.0 metres
Side (south) 2.0 metres min 2.0 metres
Rear 6.0 metres min 10.8 metres
Upper Floor Plan/ above 7.5m
Side (north) 2.5 metres min 2.0 metres X
Side (south) 2.5 metres min 2.0 metres X
Length of wall 20 metres max 23 metres X
Landscaping
Soft landscaping min 20% of site area Greater than 20%
Carparking
2 covered min 2 covered
Low Density Residential Zone Code
PO7.1 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code states:
AO7.1
Page 8 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 9
Buildings and structures are no more than 8 metres in building height and do not exceed 2 storeys.
The proposed development does not meet AO7.1 of this code, as there are 3 storey elements with
the built form of dwelling. The proposal is therefore required to meet PO7 of the Low Density
Residential Zone Code, which states:
PO7
Buildings and structures:
a. are low rise and present a building height consistent with structures on adjoining and
surrounding premises and with the predominant character of the area;
b. are designed to provide an interesting streetscape and complement landform changes;
c. do not visually dominate the street or surrounding area;
d. respect the scale of surrounding vegetation and maintain a vegetated skyline;
e. do not unreasonably obscure views or lead to overshadowing of neighbouring properties;
and
f. do not exceed two storeys.
The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO7 of the Low Density Residential
Zone Code, as the proposed dwelling is 3 storeys. Refer to Figure 5 showing the proposed 3 storey
parts of the dwelling.
Page 9 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 10
Page 10 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 11
Figure 5 – Parts of the proposed dwelling shown on the proposal plans that are 3 storeys (by definition)
(highlighted in red)
The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO7 of the Low Density Residential
Zone Code, as the proposed dwelling is 3 storeys and results in a built form that will visually
dominate the surrounding area.
Setbacks
Front Setback
Acceptable Outcome AO9.1 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code states:
AO9.1
Buildings and structures have a setback of 6 metres from the road frontage, provided that
setback to one frontage may be reduced to 4.5 metres where the lot:
a. has frontage to more than one road; and
b. is less than 600m2 in area; or
c. is less than 15 metres in width.
The proposed development does not meet AO9 of this code, as the front setbacks of the proposed
development are as following:
• 3.7m for the Lower Floor
• 4.4m for the Ground Floor
• 5.2m for the Upper Floor
The proposed development is therefore required to comply with the corresponding Performance
Outcome PO9 of this code, which states:
PO9
Buildings and structures are designed and sited to:
Page 11 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 12
a. provide a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and adjoining premises,
including provision of visual and acoustic privacy and access to sunlight;
b. not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private open space or habitable
areas of adjoining premises;
c. provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses;
d. preserve existing vegetation that will help buffer development;
e. allow for space and landscaping to be provided between buildings including adequate area
at ground level for landscaping with trees, shrubs and outdoor living;
f. be consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape; and
g. protect the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas
such as national parks, waterways and wetlands.
A review of this performance outcome has been undertaken, and it is considered that the proposed
front setback could be supported as a performance-based solution. This setback is generally
consistent with the prevailing built form and established front setbacks on the eastern side of
Arakoon Crescent. In this context, the proposed setback could not be included as a reason for
refusal for this application.
Site cover
Acceptable Outcome AO8.1 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code states:
AO8.1
Site cover of all buildings and structures on site does not exceed:
a. for a single storey building – 50%;
b. for a building of 2 storeys –
c. 50% for one of the storeys; and
d. 30% for the other storey; or
e. 40% for both storeys.
f. Editor's note—refer to Figure AP3-9A
The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO8.1 of the Low Density Residential
Zone Code on the basis that the site cover exceeds 40% from a bird’s eye view.
The proposed development is therefore required to comply with the corresponding Performance
Outcome PO8 of this code, which states:
PO8
Development:
a. is of a scale compatible with surrounding development and the particular circumstances
of the site;
b. has a low site impact to maximise the opportunity to retain site characteristics, such as
native vegetation and natural landforms;
c. allows the opportunity to provide soft landscaping between buildings;
d. does not present an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the
vicinity of the site.
The resulting building bulk does not meet Performance Outcome PO8 on the basis that:
Page 12 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 13
• It is not of a scale that is compatible with surrounding development and the particular
circumstances of the site.
• Results in a site impact that does not maximise the opportunity to retain site characteristics,
such as native vegetation and natural landforms;
• It limits allows the opportunity to provide soft landscaping between buildings;
• It will present an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the
vicinity of the site.
Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code
Development in Coastal Erosion Areas
PO1 of the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code states:
PO1 Development allows for natural fluctuations of the coast and foreshores to occur, including allowance
of climate change.
Editor's note—Coastal erosion areas are identified on Council's online mapping for the years 2040, 2070
and 2100.
A preliminary review of the submitted RHDHV Coastal Hazard Assessment referenced PA3660-
RHD-XX-ZZ-RP-Z-0001 dated 11 April 2024 was carried out by BMT, as part of discussions with
the applicant’s Coastal Engineer. A summary of this preliminary review and discussions has
identified that there are inconsistencies with the selected position of the frontal dune in the reporting
compared to aerial imagery captured around the same date.
The first image (refer to Figure 5) is from the RHDHV report – which maps the toe of the dune well
down the beach face, purported to be in November 2023. The second image (refer to Figure 6) is
from November 2023 – and the vegetation line (marked in green) – which is usually adopted as
the toe of the dune – is quite some distance landward of the location mapped by RDHDV (marked
in pink). This inconsistency has a notable impact on the extent of mapping of the erosion prone
area across the site.
Figure 5 – Extract from the submitted Coastal Hazard Assessment referenced PA3660-RHD-XX-ZZ-RP-Z-0001,
prepared by RHDHV and dated 11 April 2024
Page 13 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 14
Figure 6 – Extract from the email correspondence CC’s to Council’s Development Planner from BMT dated 18
August 2025
This preliminary advice from BMT suggests that there is a question over the accuracy of the current
mapped extent of the Erosion Prone Area (EPA) for the site.
The proposed development therefore has not adequately demonstrated that the development
facilitates the natural dynamic processes of the coastline and foreshore, including allowance for
long-term coastal fluctuations and the projected impacts of climate change. As such, the proposal
does not satisfy the performance criteria of PO1 of this code, which seeks to ensure development
is appropriately sited and designed to maintain coastal resilience and minimise interference with
natural coastal processes.
The proposed development does not comply with Performance Outcome PO1 of the Coastal
Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code.
Coastal Building Line
PO3 of the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code states:
PO3 Where a coastal building line exists on a lot, all buildings, structures and retaining walls do not
extend seaward of the coastal building line for the site, other than—
(a) uncovered and unenclosed cantilevered balconies that do not extend greater than 3 metres
seaward of the coastal building line; and
Page 14 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 15
(b) are setback a minimum of 6 metres from the seaward boundary (see Figure 8.2.4.4).
The proposed development does not comply with Performance Outcome PO3(a) of the Coastal
Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code. Specifically, the parts of the dwelling comprising
the combined kitchen/dining/living area and the outdoor living/dining area (as identified in Figures
7 and 8) are either enclosed or covered, and therefore do not constitute uncovered, unenclosed
cantilevered balconies, as required by PO3(a) of this code. These elements of the proposed built
form extend approximately 5 metres seaward of the coastal building line, resulting in non-
compliance with the intended setback provisions and visual amenity outcomes prescribed by this
code.
Figure 7 – Extract of the submitted Ground Floor Plan referenced N200.01 Rev H prepared by Shaun Lockyer
Architects and dated 11/06/2024 showing (marked up) extent of built form seaward of the coastal building line
Page 15 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 16
Figure 8 – Extract of the submitted Section 01 referenced N400.00 Rev F prepared by Shaun Lockyer
Architects and dated 11/06/2024 showing (marked up) extent of built form seaward of the coastal building line
Noting the Noosa Plan has not fully integrated State Planning Policy (July 2017) - Natural Hazards,
risk and resilience – coastal hazards assessment against the assessment benchmarks – natural
hazards, risk and resilience within the State Planning Policy is required.
State Code 8 - Coastal development and tidal works
Development in Coastal Erosion Areas
PO1 of State Code 8 states:
PO1 Development is only permitted in the erosion prone area where it:
1. is one of the following types of development:
a. coastal-dependent development; or
b. temporary, readily relocatable or able to be abandoned; or
c. essential community infrastructure; or
d. redevelopment of an existing permanent building or structure that cannot be relocated or abandoned;
and
2. cannot feasibly be located elsewhere; or
3. is located landward of:
a. a fit for purpose revetment; or
b. a proposed revetment that is consistent with:
Page 16 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 17
i. an agreement with a local government; or
ii. the alignment of adjacent lawful revetments; or
4. is on a lot less than 2000m2 where a coastal building line is present.
The proposed development does not comply with Performance Outcome PO1 of State Code 8 –
Coastal Development. The development is not considered a redevelopment of an existing
permanent building or structure, and while the site is less than 2,000m² and is affected by a mapped
coastal building line, there remains uncertainty regarding the extent and accuracy of the erosion
prone area mapping across the subject site. As such, the proposal does not demonstrate
compliance with the relevant assessment criteria and intent for PO1 of this code, which seeks to
ensure development is appropriately located and designed to mitigate coastal hazard risks.
PO2 of State Code 8 states:
PO2 Development (other than coastal protection work) in the erosion prone area:
1. does not adversely impact coastal processes; and
2. ensures that the protective function of landforms and vegetation is maintained.
Note: In considering reconfiguring a lot applications, the State may require land in the erosion prone area
to be surrendered to the State for coastal management purposes under the Coastal Protection and
Management Act 1995.
Where the planning chief executive receives a copy of a land surrender requirement or proposed land
surrender notice under the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, this must be considered in
assessing the application.
The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO2 of State Code 8, as it has not been
demonstrated that the development does not adversely impact coastal processes.
PO5 of State Code 8 states:
PO5 Development (other than coastal protection work) in the erosion prone area does not directly or
indirectly increase the severity of coastal erosion either on or off the site.
The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO5 of State Code 8 as it has not been
demonstrated that the development does not directly or indirectly increase the severity of coastal
erosion.
PO6 of State Code 8 states:
PO6 In erosion prone areas where a coastal building line is present, building work is located landward of
the coastal building line unless coastal protection work has been constructed to protect the development.
It has not been demonstrated that the proposal complies with Performance Outcome PO6 of State
Code 8, as the development has not provided the details of what coastal protection work is to be
constructed to protect the development.
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) – Premises seaward of a
coastal building works
The Department is a referral agency for Department of Environment, Science and Innovation.
The Department has responded by providing a SARA referral agency response (2405-40637 SRA),
with conditions on 26 September 2024. It is noted that this response was given prior to the
application being made to Council.
The conditions of this response included:
Page 17 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 18
• reference 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 Engineer for assessment and additional
information was requested to clarify the potential impacts of the proposed driveway on existing
vegetation within the road reserve. Specifically, amended plans were sought to clearly identify any
street trees proposed to be removed or impacted because of the driveway’s alignment and extent.
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.
6. 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 18 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 19
RECOMMENDATION
With regard to Application No MCU24/0130 for a Material Change of Use - Dwelling house situated
at 6 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach Qld 4567 and described as Lot 785 on RP48111, it is
recommended the application be refused in accordance with the following details for the Decision
Notice:
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No: MCU24/0130
Street address: 6 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach Qld 4567
Real property description: Lot 785 on RP48111
Planning Scheme: Noosa Plan 2020 (25 September 2020)
2. DECISION DETAILS
Council decided to refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO1 of the Coastal Protection
and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code, as it has not been demonstrated that the proposed
development will allow for natural fluctuations of the coast and foreshores to occur, including
allowance for climate change.
2. The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO3 of the Coastal Protection
and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code, as the proposed development extends approximately 5
metres seaward of the coastal building line.
3. The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO1 of State Code 8, as:
a. The development is not considered a redevelopment of an existing permanent
building.
b. A new dwelling could be built outside of the coastal building line.
4. The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO2 of State Code 8, as it has
not been demonstrated that the development does not adversely impact coastal processes.
5. The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO5 of State Code 8 as it has not
been demonstrated that the development does not directly or indirectly increase the severity
of coastal erosion.
6. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal complies with Performance Outcome PO6 of
State Code 8, as the development has not provided the details of what coastal protection
work is proposed to be constructed to protect the development.
7. The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO7 of the Low Density
Residential Zone Code, as the proposed dwelling is 3 storeys that will dominate the
surrounding area.
8. The proposed development does did comply with PO8 of the Low Density Residential Zone
Code as it exceeds the allowable site cover and results in a development which:
a. Is not of a scale that is compatible with surrounding development and the particular
circumstances of the site.
b. Results in a site impact that does not maximise the opportunity to
retain site characteristics, such as native vegetation and natural landforms;
c. Limits allows the opportunity to provide soft landscaping between buildings;
d. Will present an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the
vicinity of the site.
Page 19 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025
Page 20
3. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The referral agencies applicable to this application are:
Referral Status Referral Agency and Referral Trigger Response
Address
Concurrence SARA at DILGP SARA Schedule 9, Part 3, The agency provided its
at DILGP Via MyDAS2 Division 1, Table 1 response on 26
at https://prod2.dev- (Planning Regulation September 2024
assess.qld.gov.au/suite 2017) (Reference No. 2405-
/ (for assistance, 40637 SRA). A copy of
contact DILGP at 5352 the response is
9701 or attached
email:[email protected]
4. SUBMISSIONS
Not applicable.
5. RIGHTS OF APPEAL
You are entitled to appeal against this decision. A copy of the relevant appeal provisions from the
Planning Act 2016 is attached.
During the appeal period, you as the applicant may suspend your appeal period and make written
representations to Council about the conditions contained within the development approval. If
Council agrees or agrees in part with the representations, a negotiated decision notice will be
issued. Only one negotiated decision notice may be given.
6. OTHER DETAILS
If you wish to obtain more information about the decision, electronic copies are available online at
www.noosa.qld.gov.au or at Council Offices.
Page 20 of 20
Document Set ID: 24062772
24048874
Version: 1,
10,Version
VersionDate:
Date:27/08/2025
27/08/2025