REPS M2915 - Negotiated Decision Representations_200522

.




Further, Council’s Condition 2.1, in its operation, is clearly contrary to Council’s desire to address housing affordability as
it will remove affordable small dwellings from the Peregian Beach locale, which has an acute lack of well-located
affordable housing options, particularly for those households on low to moderate incomes.

2.5 Process

At no time during the application process, did Council indicate that it would require the proposal to provide access to the
residential units for less mobile residents or visitors. Importantly, our client sought to work closely with Council officers by
partaking in the pre-lodgement process and at no stage was the issue raised throughout the assessment phase of the
application.

Only after we, at Council’s request, agreed to provide Council additional time to finalise its decision, did Council raise the
concern about providing greater equitable access.

Leaving aside the question of whether there is a planning justification for Council’s requirement (which we believe there
is not), it is unconscionable for Council as the assessment manager to impose a full redesign requirement so late in the
approval process. If the issue was so critical for Council, it should have been identified and raised much earlier in the
assessment process.

2.6 Summary

Section 60(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2016 is reproduced below:

          (1)      This section applies to a properly made application, other than a part of a development application that is
          a variation request.
          (2) To the extent the application involves development that requires code assessment, and subject to section 62,
          the assessment manager, after carrying out the assessment—
          (a) must decide to approve the application to the extent the development complies with all of the assessment
          benchmarks for the development; and
          (b) may decide to approve the application even if the development does not comply with some of the assessment
          benchmarks; and
                Examples—
                1 An assessment manager may approve an application for development that does not comply with some
                of the benchmarks if the decision resolves a conflict between the benchmarks.
                2…
        (c) may impose development conditions on an approval; and
        (d)….
(Author’s emphasis added in bold-type).

Section 60 of the Planning Act 2016 provides Council with discretion to approve an application even if the development
does not comply with some of the assessment benchmarks. This is particularly so where the approval of the application
resolves a conflict between other assessment benchmarks. We consider the following grounds support the exercise of




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                      Page 8