Skip to the record
The gold standard in government transparency.

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

of 20

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

               •    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
Log in to download the original file

ATTACHMENT 3 - OFFICER'S ORIGINAL REPORT.pdf · 8.2 MB (large file)

The download may take up to a minute.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.