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
• 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
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.