2021-05-28 Special Meeting Agenda

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA                                                                     28 MAY 2021


Landslide Hazard Overlay Code
The site is mapped as being in a high hazard area being a high risk erosion prone area where the
existing coastal vegetation provides dune stability and acts as a natural buffer to coastal processes.
The proposal will result in an increase in the number of people and property in a high hazard area,
which is not compatible with the hazard. The development has not sought to minimise the risks and
will compromise the ability for the area to be maintained in a natural state and allow natural
processes to occur contrary to the code.
Overall outcomes
2(a) Development in areas at risk from landslide hazard is compatible with the nature of the hazard.
2(b) Development is resilient to landslide hazards by ensuring siting, design and access responds
     to and minimises potential risks to people, property and the environment.
2(c) Natural processes and the protective function of landforms and vegetation are maintained in
     landslide hazard areas.
Performance Outcomes
PO1 Development maintains the safety of people, property and hazardous materials stored in bulk
    from the risk of landslide.

4.   CONSULTATION
4.1. Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the following Referral Agency:
    Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (SARA)
The Department is a referral agency for the proposal to reconfigure a lot within the coastal
management district. The Department has responded directing that Council must refuse the
development application pursuant to section 62 of the Planning Act 2016.
A copy of the Departments reasons for refusal is provided as Attachment 1, however, an excerpt is
provided below.
The impact of the proposal on coastal processes and the environment is found to be unacceptable
for the following reasons:
    the entire subject lot is considered at risk from coastal erosion
    the reconfiguration of the lot is not considered to be coastal dependent development
    the reconfiguration of the lot in the erosion prone area impacts the ability for this area of the
     site to be retained in its natural state to allow coastal processes to occur
    if this area of the site is not retained in its natural state there is an increased risk to people and
     property due to the effects of coastal erosion
    the reconfiguration of the lot is not considered to have managed, prevented or minimised the
     potential severity of erosion and coastal hazards occurring over the subject site
    the proposed lot will be located more seaward than existing development in the surrounding
     area
    and located wholly within the erosion prone area. It is therefore unable to be located, designed
     or constructed to minimise impacts from coastal erosion.
The development proposal:
    is not considered to be coastal dependent development that is required to be located in the
     erosion prone area
    will not protect life, buildings and infrastructure from the impacts of coastal erosion or maintain
     coastal processes, as the site is located entirely in an erosion prone area
    does not account for the projected impacts of climate change, as the site is located within an
     erosion prone area.

                                                                                           Page 14 of 18