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 1 - Development Assessment Manager'S Report
ATTACHMENT 1 – DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT MANAGER’S REPORT REPORT On 18 August 2025 Council officers under delegation refused a development application for Material Change of Use for Dwelling House at 6 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach 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. As a result of Council’s decision to refuse the application, the applicant has now lodged an appeal to the Planning & Environment Court. The applicant seeks that the development be approved subject to reasonable and relevant conditions.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 3 pages
Page 2
The application sought approval to develop a Low Density Residential zoned site to establish
a Dwelling House. The site is also located within the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity
Overlay, is mapped by the state as being an Erosion Prone Area and includes the Coastal
Building Line.
The proposal involves the removal of an existing swimming pool, which is a recreational
feature of the dwelling located on the adjoining property at 4 Arakoon Crescent, and the
construction of a large dwelling which is in part three-storeys and includes non-compliance
with planning scheme requirements regarding site cover and setbacks.
Prior to the application being submitted to Council, the applicant obtained a SARA referral
agency response (dated 26 September 2024) regarding the Coastal Hazards Assessment for
Building Works within the mapped Coastal Building Line.
Furthermore, a geotechnical assessment prepared by Tectonic Geotechnical Engineers and
a Coastal Hazards Assessment prepared by Royal Haskoning DHV were submitted in support
of the application.
Figure 1 – Locality Plan
Page 3
Figure 2 – Site Plan Geo-technical matters relating to the site’s location within the mapped erosion prone area could not be fully assessed because of the applicant not agreeing to further review by Council’s consulting geotechnical expert. Notwithstanding, it was evident from their initial review that the supporting geotechnical material provided by the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate the extent of the erosion prone area and the required construction methodologies to address this risk. The matter is in order for Council to defend the appeal and the recommendation is worded accordingly. Previous Council Consideration Not Applicable Finance & Risk It is premature at this stage to provide advice on the likely prospects of the appeal. There will be costs associated with defending the appeal, particularly if the matter proceeds to trial. Consultation External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder Thynne McCartney – Tim Quirk
Page 4
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Office of the CEO, Mayor & Community Services Corporate Services
Councillors
Mayor & Councillors Director Director
Chief Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Officers Sport & Active Lifestyles Fleet
Community Engagement Arts & Culture Revenue Services
People & Culture Community Connection ICT
Governance Customer Experience Commercial Property
Strategy & Environment & Development & Regulation Infrastructure Services
Sustainable Development
Director Director Director
Strategic Land Use Planning x Development Assessment Infrastructure Planning, Design
and Delivery
Economic Development & Local Laws Civil and Asset operations
Destination Management
Environmental Services Environmental Health Asset Management
Innovation & Digital Hub Building & Plumbing Building & Facilities
Property / Permits Disaster Management
Waste