The rejection of a controversial proposal to develop a housing estate on nearly 65 hectares of rural land is now the subject of a court appeal.
The applicants behind the proposed third stage of the Parklakes development at Bli Bli have lodged an appeal with the Planning and Environment Court in Brisbane, seeking to overturn the Sunshine Coast Council’s decision on November 21 to refuse the application.
Related story: Council votes to refuse next stage of housing estate
Brisbane-based Steele Project Strategy and Advisory, acting on behalf of applicants Focus Estates Pty Ltd and One Man Bli Bli Pty Ltd, filed the appeal on December 19.
The appeal asks that “the respondent’s decision to refuse the development application be set aside and replaced with a decision to approve the development application subject to lawful conditions”.
The council’s reasons for refusal, cited in the court documents, highlight concerns primarily around flooding, as well as building heights, a lack of open spaces and agricultural buffers, and a planned local centre precinct being “oversized”.
Do you have an opinion to share? Submit a Letter to the Editor at Sunshine Coast News via news@sunshinecoastnews.com.au. You must include your name and suburb.
“The development is proposed in a flood and inundation area and the development does not satisfy the criteria to allow urban development to occur in the flood and inundation area,” the documents state.
But the appellants argue that the proposed development will not result in “unacceptable flooding impacts or give rise to coastal hazard risks”.
The documents state that a report called the Bli Bli Northern Village Flood Impact Assessment Single Lake Design was prepared by SLR Consulting Australia in January 2024, which was then reviewed by Water Engineering Plus Pty Ltd at the request of the council.
A letter from Water Engineering Plus in April 2024 stated that although there were points that required clarification, it was unlikely to give rise to grounds for refusal.
“Overall, the flood modelling assessment undertaken for the site is considered to be at an appropriate level of detail and of a scope that is generally considered appropriate for the nature of the proposed development,” it said.
Related story: Third stage of housing estate recommended for refusal
The appeal also argues that the proposed development would deliver upgrades to road and pedestrian networks, as well as drainage improvements, and not result in unacceptable impact on water quality, environmental values, public health, visual amenity or agricultural land.
“The proposed development complies with other assessment benchmarks relied on by the respondent in the decision notice, or can be conditioned to achieve compliance,” the documents state.
Michael White and the White Commercial Property Group are also co-respondents to the appeal, via a notice of election submitted on December 23.
No hearing dates have yet been set.
