The appeal documents state the enforcement notice alleges non-compliance with various conditions in the development permit and recites a number of permit conditions.
Chappies argues the notice should be set aside because the court could not be “reasonably satisfied” that the alleged development offence “has been, or is being committed” by any person, or by the appellant.
The company argues the enforcement notice “does not identify any particular act or omission” said to have been done by Chappies, or any person, in respect of the alleged offence.
It also claims the notice “barely asserts” that conditions of the development permit had not been complied with, and recites conditions “without identifying and/or particularising how those conditions have been contravened (if at all)”.
The appeal also argues there are discretionary matters against giving the enforcement notice and that its requirements are “not reasonable”.
Chappies is seeking orders that the appeal be allowed and council’s decision to issue the enforcement notice be set aside, or replaced with a decision to issue no enforcement notice or one with different requirements.
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.
A Sunshine Coast Council spokesperson told Sunshine Coast News, “Given this matter is currently before the Planning and Environment Court, council is unable to provide further comment at this time”.
Council filed an entry of appearance on June 17, formally entering the proceeding as respondent.
The court matter relates to a development approval issued by council in May 2023 for a dual occupancy and associated operational works, including stormwater, driveways, parking and landscaping.
The original town planning report, prepared by Adams and Sparkes Town Planning for Chappies Pty Ltd, said the proposal involved two four-bedroom dwellings across two storeys on a 754sqm corner site with frontages to Allambie Court and Adelong Crescent.
The planning report lodged at the time acknowledged the proposal did not meet all nominated acceptable outcomes of the Dual Occupancy Code, meaning it was subject to code assessment for those areas. Those matters included the preferred minimum 800sqm lot size, the inclusion of four bedrooms in each dwelling where the code referred to three, some setback provisions and a proposed 1.8m front wall where the code referred to 1.2m.
The report argued the design met the relevant performance outcomes and did not represent an overdevelopment of the site. Council approved the application on May 23, 2023, subject to conditions.
Those original planning assessment matters are separate to the later enforcement notice and do not establish the alleged breach now before the court.