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
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
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.