An appeal has been launched in the Planning and Environment Court after a council rejected a couple’s bid to redevelop their beachfront property.
Linda and Michael Omeros are challenging Noosa Council’s refusal of a code-assessable application for building work on their 546sqm block fronting the beach at 58 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach.
The site currently has a two-storey split-level home with a suspended verandah extending seaward from the upper level. The proposal involves demolishing the existing house and constructing a new dwelling.
Property records show the house sold in March 2022 for $18.75 million.
The application was submitted in October last year. It triggered referral to the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) because it proposed building work partly seaward of a coastal building line under the state’s Coastal Protection and Management Act, which regulates work in areas prone to erosion.
The SARA response, dated December 10, said it had assessed the application against the State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP) and “determined that the development complies, with conditions”, which included that “the development minimises adverse impacts on environmental values”.
On August 7, the council issued a decision notice advising that it had decided to refuse the application.
The reasons for refusal stated that the proposal was not compliant with the council’s Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code as it did not allow for “natural fluctuations of the coast and foreshores to occur, including allowance of climate change”; that it “extends approximately nine metres seaward of the coastal building line”; and that it did not meet SDAP performance outcomes around development in erosion-prone areas.
A notice of appeal was then filed on September 4 by Maroochydore-based P&E Law on behalf of Mr and Mrs Omeros, stating that the application complied, or could be conditioned to comply, with planning requirements.
Related story: CEO takes mansion battle to court after council knockback
The appeal stated that the Omeroses’ consultants issued a revised coastal hazard assessment report on August 21, in agreement with council’s experts, which included a recalculation of the erosion-prone area affecting the land.
“With appropriate foundation design, (the development) would not adversely impact coastal processes and would not affect the future coastal management options for this section of Sunshine Beach,” the report said.
“The advice of a geotechnical engineer will be required to inform the design of the house to accommodate future site conditions and implement the management measures.”
The appeal also states that although the proposed dwelling extends about nine metres seaward of the coastal building line, it remains set back 6m from the eastern boundary and is similar to the footprint of the existing home.
“The proposed positioning of the development is consistent with dwellings on surrounding land (and) is sympathetic to the land’s features and topography,” it states.
The appeal also contends that the council went beyond its powers by assessing the proposal against the State Development Assessment Provisions.
No hearing dates for the matter have been set.
The aerial imagery in this story is from Australian location intelligence company Nearmap. The company provides government organisations, architectural, construction and engineering firms, and other companies, with easy, instant access to high-resolution aerial imagery, city-scale 3D content, artificial intelligence data sets, and geospatial tools to assist with urban planning, monitoring and development projects in Australia, New Zealand and North America.
