SARA_Information response

3. in contrast, we note that the information request given by the State
Assessment Referral Agency (“SARA”) dated 6 December 2022
appears to proceed on an incorrect footing. That is, the issues with
respect to State Code 25 appear to be premised upon the Change
Application representing an opportunity to reassess the whole of
the development afresh. In our view that is wrong and inconsistent
with the law and recent jurisprudence of the Planning and
Environment Court. An example of the incorrect approach are the
comments made in Issue 5 of the SARA information request which
identifies, “the application material has not provided an assessment
of the koala habitat area on site. An arborist report was provided
for the additional area of proposed clearing, however an ecological
assessment is required for the whole site” (emphasis added). That
approach stands in stark contrast with the approach identified in
both the explanatory notes to the Planning Act 2076 in respect of
section 82 and the law as identified by the decision in Catterall &
Ors v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 52.

On the strength of the above, it is our view that the approach identified
by SARA in the information request and, in particular but not limited to
Issue 5, fails to properly understand the required assessment and seeks to
impermissibly assess and comment upon elements of the Development
Approval which are not changing.

Conclusion

In our view:

1. given the changed development is “consistent” with the
Development Approval, the relevant considerations arising from the
change to the koala regulations in the PR are not engaged; and

2. even if we are wrong about the above, given the statutory exercise
that is required by the PA, SARA ought to be invited to carry out

its assessment according to law.

Yours faithfully
CONNOR O’MEARA

KAUXLOMN -

“Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation”

0061 2867.D0CX